Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD [MONEY]

Resolved:
That this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable grants to be made under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, as applied by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Act, 1938, in respect of works authorised by the last mentioned Act for the drainage of the Lee Catchment Area and the prevention of floods, the time for the construction of which may be extended by any Act of the present Session, as if such works had been the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works under the Land Drainage Act, 1930."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]—[King's Recommendation signified.]

TOWYN TREWAN COMMON, ANGLESEY [MONEY]

Resolved:
That this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the compensation payable and of the expenses incurred or other payments to be made under any Act of the present Session extinguishing common and commonable rights and rights of way and other rights over and the enclosure of part of Towyn Trewan Common in the County of Anglesey, and providing for the payment and apportionment of compensation in respect of such extinguishment, the use to be made by the public of a road known as the Burma Road and of a track adjoining the said Common and for the repayment to the Conservators of the Common of the costs, charges, and expenses of the promotion of the Bill for the said Act."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Posting Times

Mr. Erroll: asked the Postmaster-General if he will publish particulars giving general guidance to the public as to the latest times of posting at head post offices, or their equivalent, so as to secure first delivery on the following morning.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): This information is normally shown in the window notice at all head post offices.

Mr. Erroll: If the Minister will look at these windows he will find that it is not stated that many letters are not delivered until the second post. Will he have the correct information shown at all post offices?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I looked at some of these this morning. If the hon. Gentleman has any instances in mind perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Erroll: The Minister has had a lot of my instances.

Ex-Service Men (Appointments)

Mr. Marples: asked the Postmaster-General when engaging postmen what preference he gives to ex-Service men; and how many non-Regular ex-Service men he has engaged during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1950.

Mr. Ness Edwards: When engaging outside candidates for permanent appointment as postmen, preference is given first to ex-Regulars and then to non-Regular ex-Service men. In 1949, of the 10,147 postmen appointed, 8,764 were ex-Service men, 6,806 being non-Regulars.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to the claims of ex-Regular service men who are extremely discouraged by the difficulty of obtaining appointments, and at being discharged when they get appointments because they are not established?

Mr. Ness Edwards: They will be given first preference.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the Minister satisfied that these men, at the time of engagement, always understand the difference between establishment and temporary employment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think all the circumstances of employment are indicated to them, and that they clearly understand them.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What is the maximum age limit at which ex-Service men receive employment in the Post Office?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Tyre Remoulding Plant

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Postmaster-General what capital or other sum has been expended on the installation of tyre remoulding plant since 1st January, 1950, for remoulding the tyres of General Post Office vehicles; what further sums he intends to spend on remoulding plant; and whether he is satisfied that the expenditure is justified in view of the remoulding facilities already available at competitive prices by private firms.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Since 1st January, 1950, £10,450 has been expended on plant for remoulding certain sizes of tyre for Post Office vehicles. Another £1,000 may be spent this year. The whole of its capital cost will be saved in the first year of working.

Mr. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this decision follows the instruction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that capital shall not be used on matters of this sort?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As I am saving a substantial sum of money I thought we could meet the expenditure on the work.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these remoulding plants are being set up by the Post Office?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Only one.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Could my right hon. Friend say how much time and money will be saved by the installation of this plant and whether there is any difference in the competitive prices, if such prices have been obtained?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It would be better if we waited to see the results of the first year's working.

Facilities, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Post master-General when it is expected that the new post office at Newport will be completed; and when the new telephone exchange will be available.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The new wing of the post office at Newport should be completed by the end of 1952 and the new automatic telephone exchange by the end of 1953.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the long delay that has already occurred in starting these two projects and in view of their great urgency, could my right hon. Friend see that every practical step is taken in pressing them forward to completion at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are now pushing on as hard as we can with everything.

High Frequency Licences

Mr. Erroll: asked the Postmaster General how many applications for very high frequency licences are outstanding; and what are the reasons for the delays before granting applications.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Twenty applications are outstanding. Of these, 10 raise a general question of policy which is under discussion with other Departments; and six have been received in the past week The remaining four are for radio service between fixed points. These cases have to be examined to see individually whether communication by telephone line is practicable and, if approved, for the selection of an appropriate frequency—a matter on which consultation with other Departments is required.

Mr. Erroll: Could the whole process be speeded up?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is being speeded up; a decision was announced a fortnight ago with regard to high frequencies.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could the Minister say how many licences of this kind have been granted to date?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Not without notice.

Damaged Van

Mr. Erroll: asked the Postmaster-General how the recent unrepaired damage to the bodywork of the London district post office van No. 23935 occurred and who was responsible; and why both front wings have not been properly repaired.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The indications are that the van was struck by a passing vehicle which did not stop. The damage was not sufficient to make the van unserviceable and it was, therefore, retained in use until repairs, now in band, could begin in ordinary course.

Mr. Erroll: What steps are being taken to apprehend the passing passenger vehicle?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As there were no witnesses, how could we apprehend it?

Staff Associations

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General if he has now any further statement to make on the recognition of organisations of employees in the Post Office.

Mr. Richard Winterbottom: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about unrecognised unions in the Post Office.

Mr. Storey: asked the Postmaster-General if he can now make his promised statement upon the recognition of staff associations in the Post Office.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have now carefully reviewed the basis on which recognition by the Post Office should be given to new staff associations. In view of the paramount need in the present critical national situation to ensure harmonious working relationships and measures of co-operation between the Post Office and its staff as a whole, I have reached the conclusion that it is desirable to correct certain misapprehensions that have grown up regarding Post Office policy in dealing with requests for recognition of new associations.
Questions of recognition in the Post Office are not, in my judgment, suitable for settlement by reference to any automatic formula. Each case must be considered individually, and in any arrangement which may be made it will be one of my principal objectives to ensure that

the interests of the staff are safeguarded. In deciding any particular case it is necessary to take account of such factors as the degree to which the new association is representative of the staff concerned, how far the grade or grades in respect of which recognition is claimed can properly be regarded as a separate entity from the point of view of staff organisation and discussions, and generally the position of the grade or grades in question in relation to other grades in the same organisation. It is essential also to take into account wider questions, such as the effect of a change in representation on the general working relationships in the Post Office.
In the light of these considerations, and after weighing up carefully all the relevant factors, I have come to the conclusion that I ought not to grant recognition to the Engineering Officers (Telecommunications) Association.

Mr. Hynd: When the Postmaster-General says that this is not a matter that can be subject to an automatic formula, is that not a departure from previous practice in the Post Office?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this unrecognised organisation, of which, I understand, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is the legal adviser, is a break-away body for a recognised trade union, and that there are dangers in the granting of recognition at this particular stage?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While dissociating myself and the organisation concerned from the rather doubtful compliment the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. Winterbottom) has just paid to it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the decision he has just announced means that he is applying retrospectively his new rule as to recognition? Is he not, in fact, denying to an organisation, which for eight months, under the old rules, has been entitled to recognition, the recognition to which it has been entitled during that period?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, I have not changed any rule. What I have read out to the House today follows very closely what the Earl of Selborne, formerly Lord Wolmer, said on this point


when he was my predecessor. With regard to the rule which has been mentioned, it has been misquoted, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the annual conference agenda of the union, which, apparently, he represents, he will find that they also take a view contrary to the one he takes.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is the Postmaster-General saying that there has been no rule? It has, at any rate, been the rule for some time that if an organisation shows it has 40 per cent. of the members in a grade it can ask for and get recognition? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is taking up the position that he is to be the sole arbiter as to whether he will allow recognition or not, whereas previously there was some entitlement to recognition for a body with a proper amount of representation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think the question the hon. Gentleman has put clinches the whole business. Since about 1946 or 1947, it has been laid down that a union or an association must have 40 per cent. of the people in a grade in its membership before it could ask for consideration of its claim. I have not disturbed that at all. I am not contesting the figure. I have considered this body's entitlement. It asked me to consider its claim for recognition. I have considered the claim for recognition. Recognition is not automatic on the achievement of 40 per cent. membership, and never has been in the Post Office.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that Tory infiltration may be as dangerous to existing labour relationships as Communism?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think it is advisable and far better in these disputes between unions that they should be left to the industrial field, rather than brought into the political arena.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the Postmaster-General say, in view of his remark that there were 37 different unions engaged in Post Office work, what steps he means to take to bring about, with the T.U.C., a more modern organisation of labour representation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a problem, and a very great difficulty in the Post Office. If the alleged formula applied—

the alleged rule applied—I should have 500 unions, and that would be an impossible situation. In such a situation, when there are negotiations, one finds something like a Dutch auction taking place. One organisation asks for so much, and the competing one asks for 4s. or 5s. more than the first asked for. I shall give my attention to this problem once we have got this matter out of the way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that this problem ought to be settled on industrial grounds, may I ask him if he is aware that a large number of people in this House and in the Post Office think that this problem is being settled on political grounds?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to assure both sides of the House that the decision I have taken follows very closely a decision taken in precisely similar circumstances by a Conservative predecessor of mine.

Mr. Joseph Hale: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of their demand for recognition, he has now any statement to make regarding the National Association of Postal and Telegraph Officers.

Mr. Ness Edwards: A claim for recognition has been received from the National Association of Postal and Telegraph Officers. I have come to the conclusion that I ought not to grant recognition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what reason?

Mr. Ness Edwards: For the reason that it is not representative, and that the largest body of workmen is adequately covered by the association of workmen that now exists.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he has come to the opinion that they are not representative? Arising out of his answer to the previous Question, will he name the 500 unions which have the 40 per cent. membership?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There ought not to be any misapprehension. If the formula that is put forward by the hon. Gentleman were applied to the Post Office we could have 500 unions.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman, when answering the previous Question, referred to a dispute between unions. Surely he could recognise a union that has over 40 per cent. membership without withdrawing recognition from any other union. Will he explain why he refers to a dispute between unions? Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his predecessor was consulted before——

Mr. Paton: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if it is in order for a speaker, when asking a supplementary question to this Question, to tie it up with the previous Question?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for me. I was, as a matter of fact, about to rise to say we must not debate this Question. Hon. Members may only ask questions. However, it is a matter for me to decide.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, secondly, whether his predecessor was consulted before the Treasury published this document, "Staff Relations in the Civil Service," last year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know whether my predecessor was consulted, but there is nothing in that document inconsistent with what I have said from this Box, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will examine it closely he will find that I am in accord with the document. With regard to the first part of the supplementary, in this case this is a small union; it is a dissident body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is merely a break-away union; it is of no great size; it does not represent a large body of opinion, and as that section of the workmen are now properly represented I do not propose to extend recognition to this organisation.

Captain Crookshank: As you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out, we must not ask questions unduly long on this subject, so may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall seek an opportunity of discussing this further, in view of his very unsatisfactory reply.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now examined the undertaking given by the Assistant Postmaster-General on 14th December, 1949, to check the member-

ship figures of the Engineering Officers (Telecommunications) Association on 31st December, 1949; and what action he now proposes to take.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir; and in the light of my general statement I see no purpose in carrying out a check at the present time. I have come to this conclusion on the assumption that this Association's membership figures are as claimed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the remark that he made two months ago, to the effect that he disputed the figures they had put forward?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not certain that I said that I disputed them. What I said was that I could not confirm them, and that is the line I have taken all along; but in this case I assume that they are what they claim them to be for the purpose of the consideration of this question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he will not recognise this Association, whatever its membership figures may be?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. It does not mean that at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General what are the existing rules governing recognition of staff associations by the Post Office.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I have already made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the obscurity of that statement, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his contention that he has announced any change or is merely continuing the existing rules?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have announced no change at all.

Mr. Awbery: Are we to take it that it is now the policy of the Opposition to encourage break-away unions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General when his review of the rules governing recognition of staff associations in the Post Office began; and whether he will now state its result.

Mr. Ness Edwards: My review started on my reaching office on 2nd March. I have already made a general statement on this matter.

Deliveries, Macclesfield

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for the first postal delivery in Macclesfield to reach business premises by 8 a.m., which is the accepted time for mills and factories to commence work on weekdays.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No. Sir. The first delivery in Macclesfield begins at 7 a.m. and reaches mills and factories in their order on the postmen's rounds. An earlier start is not practicable.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of the mails arrive at 9 a.m.; and is he aware that because of this slowness the export trade in this area is hindered?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have details of any mills which are getting their post a bit late I will see if I can make some arrangement to meet the point.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of my family received a letter that had been posted in Brussels on the same morning, which shows what the Post Office can do if they really try?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRMET SERVICE

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider allocating wavelengths, now allocated to broadcasting stations far enough away to avoid interference, on which to restart the Airmet service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The number of long and medium wavelengths allocated to this country for broadcasting is insufficient to meet demands, and there is no prospect of the use of one of them for this service. I have, of course, no power to appropriate wavelengths allotted by the Copenhagen Plan to other countries.

Mr. Grimston: While not agreeing with the argument the right hon. Gentleman has just used, may I ask whether he will now examine the possibility of using the Third Programme wavelength up to

six o'clock when the Third Programme I starts, as the wavelength is free till then a and could be used for this service?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have some sympathy with the point of view expressed in the Question, and I have asked my hon. Friend, in conjunction with other Departments and the B.B.C., to go over the whole ground to see what can be done to accommodate that point of view.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at night it is now impossible to hear the French and Italian broadcasts of the B.B.C. because of the interference from other stations?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, but I will take that matter up with the B.B.C.

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for the broadcast of upper air temperatures; and humidities which used to be available daily at 0820 hours on Airmet.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I regret that within the present time allocated by the B.B.C. to weather broadcasts it would not be possible to include this information.

Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman get in touch with the Postmaster-General, and see that he is made aware of the need for this kind of information, particularly for gliding?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. Discussions are already taking place on this point.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date negotiations were started for a new wavelength to be allocated to Airmet broadcasts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): Immediately after the Copenhagen International Telecommunications Union Broadcasting Conference in the Autumn of 1948, when it became clear that the Airmet broadcast would have to be discontinued unless another wavelength could be allocated.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the conference was called immediately and negotiations begun then for securing a new wavelength; or has it been left until a certain amount of publicity has been thrown upon the subject?

Mr. Beswick: The conference was an international conference called, of course, in the course of international undertakings, but it was found impossible to squeeze this particular service into the limited amount of frequency available for aeronautical purposes. However, I must say that I have great sympathy with this; we are discussing it, and if it is possible to find some alternative frequency that will be done.

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what plain language weather broadcast information is available to civil aircraft which does not cause congestion on flying control frequencies now that the Airmet service has been suspended.

Mr. Beswick: There are no regular broadcasts, but limited weather information is available on radio telephone on request to air traffic control.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that this added congestion on the frequency is most undesirable, and will he press the Postmaster-General to allow the use of the Third Programme frequency, as I have previously suggested?

Mr. Beswick: Yes, I have pressed the Postmaster-General. There has been a lot of pressure from all sorts of people, but it would still be necessary for an airline pilot to call for a weather forecast in certain cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mitcham

Mr. Carr: asked the Postmaster-General the number of applicants waiting for telephones in the borough of Mitcham on 1st January, 1949, and 1950; how many installations were made during 1949; and what is the longest period for which anyone has been waiting.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There were 2,076 on 1st January, 1949, and 1,986 on 1st January, 1950; and 456 new subscribers were connected in 1949. The earliest outstanding application was made in 1942.

Mr. Carr: In view of the very slow reduction in the number on the waiting list, can the Minister take any further

action to improve the position more rapidly this year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The position is being examined.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: How much of the great delay in installing telephone equipment all over the country is due to the fact that our equipment is being exported, very often to our trade competitors?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is largely due to the capital investment programme.

Mr. Carr: Could the Minister say whether the waiting list is worked through in rotation, or whether there is any scheme of priorities for these applicants?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Schemes of priorities are laid down by the Post Office Advisory Board, on which hon. Members of this House sit.

Wallington

Mr. Carr: asked the Postmaster-General the number of applicants waiting for telephones in the borough of Wallington on 1st January, 1949, and 1950; how many installations were made during 1949; and what is the longest period for which anyone has been waiting.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There were 864 on 1st January, 1949, and 1,135 on 1st January, 1950; and 431 new subscribers were connected in 1949. The earliest outstanding application was made in 1942.

Petroleum Office, London (Communication)

Mr. G. B. Craddock: asked the Postmaster-General why it is difficult to establish telephonic communication with the Regional Petroleum Office, Bromyard Avenue, London, W.3; and if he will take steps to improve the position.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The difficulty is due to a seasonal rise in the number of telephone calls to that office. I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on the best means of meeting the situation.

Mr. Craddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of great urgency in view of the many delays, and also in view of the fact that on Friday, 5th May, the hon. Member for Spelthorne


telephoned to this office on two occasions, upon the first of which it took 17 minutes to establish connection and on the second no less than 33 minutes? Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Minister of Fuel and Power that the quickest way to get over this difficulty is to abolish petrol rationing altogether?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter, but it is really his responsibility and not mine. He might suggest that hon. Members might write letters instead of telephoning.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION (SPORTING EVENTS)

Mr. Marples: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on his discussion with sports promoters on the question of televising sporting events.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on his discussions with representatives of sporting associations concerning their copyright safeguards in connection with the televising of sports events.

Mr. Harrison: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken with regard to the reproduction of sporting events in the television programmes; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations he has had with the responsible organisers of national sports meetings

Mr. Ness Edwards: On 9th May I invited leading personalities in the sports world, representatives of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Radio Industry Council, to discuss with me questions affecting the inclusion of sporting events in the B.B.C.'s television programmes. My object is to secure, if possible, an increase in the volume of sports television available to the general public in their homes through the B.B.C.'s television service. Full and frank discussion took place on the difficulties felt by the promoters and all the representatives of sporting organisations expressed the view that their legitimate civil interests ought to be protected by a copyright or other legal safeguard.
I expressed my sympathy with the view that those responsible for promoting sporting events should have a reasonable safeguard of their legitimate interests, and I assured the meeting that no licences would be granted permitting the commercial televising of sporting events in places of entertainment without further prior consultation with the promoters. I indicated that it was important to remove from the minds of the public any impression that there was a ban on the showing of sporting events in the B.B.C.'s television programmes for the home. I also suggested that good use might be made of the interval before the Beveridge Broadcasting Committee reported if agreement could be reached for the televising of additional experimental sports items in order to gather experience of the real effect on all interests concerned.
The discussion, in my view, was very helpful and I hope to continue it next week after the various representatives who were present have had time to consult further with their associations.

Mr. Marples: When consulting next week with the various sporting promoters, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that undoubtedly sporting events are at the moment the most effective spectacle on television and, secondly, that we must have an efficient home industry in television if we are to have a successful export industry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Those matters are borne well in mind.

Mr. Harrison: In view of the tremendous possibilities of television, is the Minister satisfied with the progress being made? Can he assure the public that everything is being done to extend to the fullest the programme for this new form of entertainment and news?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to anticipate what will arise at the conference next week, but I am very optimistic.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that there is no desire to withhold the television of sporting events from the normal service to people's homes?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I hope to remove that desire.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to televise some of the English footballers who are playing in South America?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (TRADE UNIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General why no agreement has yet been reached between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the trade unions on the subject of trade union recognition; and what steps are now being taken to expedite a settlement of the matter on which the Trades Union Congress first approached the Corporation on 13th June, 1947.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am informed that, after careful consideration of the T.U.C. proposals, the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. remains of the opinion that the B.B.C. Staff Association is the appropriate organisation for purposes of negotiation with the staff and that this form of representation is in line with the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee of 1935. I am not aware of any current negotiations, but I am informed that the Corporation has represented its views to the Beveridge Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this so-called Staff Association represents less than 50 per cent. of the employees of the B.B.C? Is he further aware that, by their obstinate refusal to follow the recognised practice of every reputable employer in this country, the B.B.C. are showing themselves completely out of tune with the long-established practice in such matters as this?

Mr. Mikardo: Have not conditions changed sharply in the 15 years since the recommendation to which my right hon. Friend refers was made, and is it not altogether a bad thing that a public corporation, in respect of the recommendation of bona fide trade unions, should behave worse than the best private employers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am in rather a difficulty in this matter. It has gone before the Beveridge Committee on the part of the B.B.C, in addition to which

the T.U.C. have also made recommendations to the Committee. It would be quite inappropriate for me to make a statement at this stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of Order. So that this dubious aspect of B.B.C. administration shall be further considered, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Flying Clubs

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is his intention to recommend an increase in the grant to flying clubs under his Department's scheme of flying training for the Air Training Corps, to offset the increased tax on petrol.

Mr. A. Henderson: Prior to the imposition of the petrol tax, it was estimated that some 225 cadets would be trained by the flying clubs within the total grant of £30,000. As a result of the tax the number of cadets may be reduced by 10 or 12. I am considering whether steps can be taken to avoid this reduction.

Station, Wellesbourne (Fencing)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much money was spent in erecting a barbed wire fence round the extreme boundary of the Royal Air Force Station, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, contrary to Air Ministry Directorate of Works Order D.G.W. No. 594; and how much it will cost to remove this wire and replace it with statutory fencing.

Mr. A. Henderson: About £430 has been spent at various times since the war on fencing the gaps in the boundary hedge with barbed wire. To replace the barbed wire with cleft chestnut fencing and quickset would cost about £700.

Mr. Profumo: Can the Minister tell us who will bear this cost? Will it be his Ministry or the ratepayers? Is he aware that this is just the sort of thing which hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House mean when they refer to wasteful Government expenditure?

Mr. Henderson: As at present advised, I do not propose to replace the present type of fencing with the type of fencing which will cost £700. The reason why the barbed wire was placed round the boundary was because of the large amount of trespassing that had been taking place.

Pilots (Civil Aviation Appointments)

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many applications have now been received from Royal Air Force pilots for pre selection for civil aviation since the publication of his Department's Order A45/50, issued on 19th January, 1950; and what steps are being taken to assist these applicants.

Mr. A. Henderson: Two hundred and thirty, Sir. A selection board has been set up, consisting of representatives from the civil aviation corporations, the charter organisations, the Services and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Pre-selected candidates will, so far as Service conditions permit, be posted to appointments in Bomber and Transport Commands to help them to gain the experience required for their civil licences.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the progress which is being made under this scheme?

Mr. Henderson: So far, yes.

Volunteer Reserve Units

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to secure that Volunteer Reserve Units are spread over a wider area of the country than at present.

Mr. A. Henderson: A committee, of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air is chairman, is already examining the structure of the Volunteer Reserve, including the organisation of Reserve units throughout the country.

Bombing, Heligoland

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether instead of bombing the island of Heligoland with live bombs, he will use practice bombs, or alternatively, use a target out at sea,

or at least some tidal estuary on the mainland of Germany.

Mr. A. Henderson: No, Sir. Training with live bombs is an essential part of bomber training. The reasons why Heligoland is the only suitable place for bomber training were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his statement of 29th June, 1949.

Professor Savory: May I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give further consideration to this suggestion, which has been made by a very experienced expert who himself has done this bombing and knows what he is talking about?

Mr. Henderson: I also have the advantage of very able experts on this matter, and they take a different view.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it the policy of the Air Ministry to go on bombing this island until it does not exist, or at least becomes quite uninhabitable for centuries?

Mr. Henderson: As I have already told the House, as a result of the 5,000 tons of bombs that were dropped on the island during the war the island is now largely a mass of rubble. As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am certainly not in a position to say for how long we shall continue to use this island for bombing purposes.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that until comparatively recent times Heligoland was British territory and its inhabitants British subjects? Does that not constitute some reason for treating it as something a little better than a bombing range?

Mr. Henderson: If we are to delve into history perhaps I might remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that during two world wars Heligoland was a base for very offensive operations against this country.

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that further bombing of the island of Heligoland took place on Monday, 8th May, at a time when 20 Heligoland fishermen were taking refuge in the harbour from the severe storm then raging; and whether he will ask for a report as to how


many of the fishermen and boats were injured.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have made inquiries, and I am informed that there was no bombing of Heligoland on 8th May.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to send him two German papers with full accounts of the bombing, showing that at least three of these fishing boats were damaged on this occasion? These are telegrams from Cuxhaven, published in these two German papers.

Mr. Henderson: I shall be delighted to receive any information the hon. Gentleman may send me, but I may say that no bombing has taken place at Heligoland since 3rd May.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Commercial Pilots (Status)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what arrangements he makes, where a commercial pilot's licence lapses as a result of unemployment, to give assistance to him to regain his professional status.

Mr. Beswick: None, Sir, but full allowance is made for previous experience, and once a licence has been issued only a small amount of recent flying is required in order to keep it current.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of legislation since 1945 many older pilots now are out of work, and have not the means with which to renew their licences? Will he consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air to see whether some arrangement could be made so that these men can carry out their flying with the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Beswick: As far as the basic licence is concerned, it is possible for most of these people to join the R.A.F.V.R. and to keep in flying practice; but it is a very different proposition when we come to the type ratings. Quite frankly, although I have great sympathy with these people, I have not yet seen a practical proposal put forward by responsible people.

Cathedral Spire, Salisbury (Light)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that it is now considered necessary for the safety of aircraft and of the cathedral to instal a light on Salisbury Cathedral spire, now rebuilding; and if he will contribute towards the cost of this light.

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir. An obstruction light is not considered necessary for the safety of aircraft. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the R.A.F. being in possession of Chilmark quarry from which stone for Salisbury Cathedral comes, it is not possible to use that stone for the rebuilding of the spire? Will he therefore make a gesture and help with the cost of the stone which must be brought from elsewhere?

Mr. Donner: If the Parliamentary Secretary will not concern himself with the safety of aircraft, will he concern himself with the safety of the cathedral?

Services, Scotland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what types of aircraft are being developed for service in the islands of Scotland.

Mr. Beswick: There are no aircraft types being specially developed for service in the islands of Scotland. The British European Airways are planning to replace the D.H. Rapide by the Marathon on certain routes, and the Dakota will continue to be used on others for some years.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister tell me the length of the landing strip required for a Marathon?

Mr. Beswick: About 600 yards.

Oral Answers to Questions — ERITREA

Villagers (Removal)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sustenance is provided for the hostages taken from Eritrean villages of the high plateau and ordered to reside in


Tessenei in the Western Province, having regard to the fact that six of the 10 persons taken from Zazegga are over 50 years of age.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): As my hon. Friend has already been informed, these persons are in no sense hostages. No sustenance is provided by the British Administration for them.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say how long it is proposed to hold these hostages for a crime for which they were in no way responsible and in no way liable?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give the exact date, because it depends to some extent upon the co-operation received by the authorities from the places where they originally resided. It was non-co-operation which was originally the cause of this.

Collective Fine

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give, in respect of the village of Zazegga, Eritrea, on which a collective fine of £1,000 has been imposed on account of the murder of an Italian in the locality, the number of inhabitants in this village, and the average annual income per head of the inhabitants.

Mr. Younger: Approximately 5,000. Sir. It is impossible to ascertain the average annual income per head of the inhabitants, but the wealth of the village may be estimated from the fact that it owns movable property, for example, cattle, with a capital value of about £40,000 and some 2,700 acres of communal land.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Service Patients (Train Seats)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Defence if he will arrange with the British Transport Commission for Service men and women travelling on leave from hospital to be provided with a seat on long rail journeys.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shin-well): Service and railway authorities already endeavour to ensure that Service

patients travelling on leave, whose condition requires it, are provided with a seat. If the hon. Member has any evidence that further steps are necessary, I should be glad to consider it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the Minister aware that I have evidence of men in my constituency who have to travel from the South of England to the North-east of Scotland and have to stand up all night in a corridor when going on leave from hospital? Can he suggest what these Service patients should do?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member will let me have details of that case I will make inquiries. It may be that improvements are required, and I will do my best to see that they are brought about.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to inform him of particulars of individual cases does not help? What is needed is a general directive to members of the Services as to what steps they should take when leaving, hospital to go on sick leave.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member supplies the particulars, I may be able to reach a general conclusion.

Voluntary Service (Propaganda)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Defence what steps are taken by the Service Departments to counteract propaganda directed against voluntary service in the Fighting Forces.

Mr. Shinwell: Every opportunity is taken by the Service Departments to present the attractions of Service life and to emphasise the importance of service in His Majesty's Armed Forces both Regular and Auxiliary. The Service Departments through their public relations branches would take special action in suitable cases to answer deliberately hostile propaganda. The hon. Member will, however, recognise that the advantage may often lie in ignoring such propaganda.

Mr. Keeling: As the Minister knows, this question was inspired by a recent B.B.C. broadcast entitled "Man at War," which contained the innuendo that there is something shameful in teaching a soldier how to kill. Will he spare a word to condemn such pacifist propaganda?

Mr. Shinwell: I have gone into this, but there are varying views about it, and it may well be that it has not done as much harm as the hon. Member thinks.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say what answer his Department have given to the propaganda contained in the Sermon on the Mount?

Service Men's Children (Schools)

Mr. Bower: asked the Minister of Defence if he has now completed his consultations as to how some financial assistance might be given to Service men who are continually on the move and whose children it is therefore desirable to send to boarding schools and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Local education authorities already have powers to assist with boarding education where such education appears to them desirable and the parents' circumstances warrant help with fees. The Ministry of Education have commended to authorities' notice the case of parents whose occupation keeps them constantly on the move. The question whether anything further can be done to help Service parents is being studied.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Unshelled Groundnuts

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food whether steps will be taken to ensure that groundnuts imported into this country shall be shelled before entry or by the wholesalers; what proportion of unshelled groundnuts are made available for the retail trade; and whether these groundnuts will be sold by weight with the price clearly indicated.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): The groundnuts on sale to the public recently came from stocks privately imported, and my right hon. Friend has no power to require them to be shelled before sale, to be sold by weight (except when pre-packed), or to bear price markings. No further private imports are being allowed at present, and no Ministry imported groundnuts are released for retail sale.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a most unpleasant

nuisance is caused to the public by the people shelling groundnuts in cinemas and other places? Cannot he take some action to see that the shelling is done elsewhere?

Mrs. Castle: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that barrow boys in London are selling groundnuts at 6d. for a bag containing a minute quantity, and can he tell the House who is getting the profit from this racket?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say how in future, if no groundnuts are to be imported for sale to the public, the public is to have the opportunity of buying them?

Mr. Sorensen: May I press the Minister again on this point? Surely it is not impossible to avoid what is admittedly a great nuisance to the public at present by having groundnuts shelled before sale?

Mr. Willey: As I have already explained, if this be a nuisance it will not be a nuisance that will persist for long.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that we are dealing only with groundnuts from East Africa, and that the public would be more interested in seeing groundnuts than in worrying about the state in which they arrive?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable and widespread dissatisfaction among the worthy people who have to clean out cinemas and other places of entertainment by reason of the fact that he refuses to have these groundnuts shelled?

Mr. Assheton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary assure the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), that no one in Blackburn would be so foolish as to pay high prices for groundnuts?

Retail Shops (Restrictions)

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Food what restrictions are still in force on the opening of retail food shops; and whether these remaining restrictions can now be removed.

Mr. F. Willey: A Ministry of Food licence is still required to sell by retail rationed meat and offal, fresh milk, or chocolate and sugar confectionery. With


some other rationed and points rationed foods, certain conditions have to be satisfied before supplies can be made available; but in general, there is no restriction on genuine entrants to the retail grocery and provisions trade. I can assure the hon. Member that these restrictions are constantly under review, and will be removed as soon as the need for them has gone.

Canned Fruit

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the importation of canned fruit he is table to state the average percentage of syrup content.

Mr. F. Willey: I cannot give a figure for all imported canned fruit, but that imported by my Department contains about 40 per cent. of syrup.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the Minister tell us why certain imported canned fruit is allowed to come in with a 20 per cent. syrup content, while home canned fruits have always to have 40 per cent., which is obviously very detrimental to home canning?

Mr. Willey: I have replied for the imports for which my Department is responsible. I have no knowledge about the other imports, but I can assure the hon. Member that the question of fixing standards for all canned fruits is under consideration.

Mr. De la Bère: The hon. Gentleman ought to have some knowledge.

Major Legge-Bourke: When the Parliamentary Secretary says he has no knowledge about imports of a lower content than 40 per cent., will he look at the correspondence I sent him about a week ago?

Mr. Willey: Yes, Sir.

Vegetables (Prices)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the high prices still being charged for vegetables is causing many working class families to go short, and of the wide demand that price controls should be re- imposed in order to lower the costs of these essential foodstuffs.

Mr. F. Willey: Yes, Sir, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), on 1st May.

Mr. Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great indignation felt at the scandalous prices being charged for fruit and vegetables, which make it impossible for many working class families to buy them, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Willey: As my right hon. Friend said on 1st May, there is no quick expedient or short-term solution, and buyers' resistance to unreasonable prices is the only effective means.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Members opposite clamour for price control whenever conditions make for a shortage, but that when there is a surplus farmers have to plough in their crops because of the large quantities of foreign produce that are allowed to be dumped in this country?

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is my hon. Friend aware that I should like to lead the clamour for recontrol, and that most people will be very glad to see control re-introduced unless prices come down?

Shops (Price Inspections)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food (1) in how many towns in Great Britain retail greengrocers are called on by his officials to find out what prices are being charged; how many shops in each town are visited; how often such visits are made; on what basis the towns are selected; and how many officials are employed directly on this work, and how many on collating and typing the information secured in this way;
(2) in how many towns in Great Britain retail fishmongers are called on by his officials to find out what prices are being charged; how many shops in each town are visited; how often such visits are made; on what basis the towns are selected; how many officials are employed directly on this work, and how many on collating and typing the information secured in this way; and why this new investigation has been instituted at a time when the price of fish has been decontrolled.

Mr. F. Willey: Fish prices are collected weekly in 165 towns and cover 1,080 shops in all. No officers are employed full time on this work, but the equivalent of 13 officers are engaged on collecting, collating and typing. The corresponding figures for fruit and vegetables are 170 towns, 1,240 shops and 18 officers. Towns have been selected so as to give as representative a picture as possible for the country as a whole. Although fish prices are no longer controlled, it is still our responsibility to watch the position to see whether supplies are available at prices the consumer can afford. This information is also needed for statistical purposes.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that vegetables have been off control for three years, and that for four years his officers have been going to shops in all these different towns filling in two pages of questions which have been sent on to the statistical department at the Carlton Hotel, London? Can he say what use is made of all this data they obtain?

Mr. Willey: Considerable use is being made of it, as I have already indicated. The question of fruit and vegetables is a matter which is now under very serious review.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my hon. Friend in no circumstances allow himself to be intimidated by questions such as these from Members opposite?

Mr. Willey: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. H. Strauss: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say "the equivalent of 13 officers"? If so, what did he mean?

Subsidies

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food what was the total subsidy during 1949 on rationed foods allocated respectively to industrial canteens and to commercial caterers.

Mr. F. Willey: I am afraid that it will take some time to collect this information, but I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Major Lloyd: Will it not serve a very useful purpose if housewives, taxpayers

and those who use these facilities are aware of the additional cost of the food which is supposed to be cheap in these places?

Mr. Willey: The information will be available shortly.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why he has officials to find out if vegetables are scarce when fish is in glut?

Milk (Distribution)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food when be intends to abandon his Department's participation in distributing milk and return this function completely to the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. F. Willey: There is no early prospect of doing this.

Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that many millions of pounds could be saved to the taxpayer if this were done, that, generally speaking, distribution would be better and prices lower, or is this just another Socialist theory being persisted in?

Mr. Willey: All the hon. and gallant Gentleman's assertions are far from the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN UNMARRIED MOTHERS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further effective action has been taken by us and, the West German Government during the past six months in regard to German unmarried mothers of children whose fathers served in British occupation forces.

Mr. Younger: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the question of the legal remedies available to these women. Since November last, it has been possible for a German woman to bring affiliation proceedings in the German courts against a man who served in the British Occupation Forces and is now in Germany in a private capacity. It is, of course, also possible for a German woman to bring such proceedings under Royal Licence in the English courts against a former member of the occupation Forces who is now in this country.

Mr. Sorensen: What about those mothers who had children before that date, of which there are quite a large number still suffering financially in Germany at present?

Mr. Younger: I think that they can now bring proceedings in the particular circumstance I have mentioned.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it a fact that they can now take proceedings against the father even though he may not be living in Germany?

Mr. Younger: If the man is not now living in Germany, proceedings can be taken only under Royal Licence in the English courts.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does this apply solely to English courts, or to Scottish courts, as well?

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL (HUNGARY)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what work which was carried out by the British Council in Budapest has now ceased altogether; and what work which the Council carried out before its com pulsory closure is now carried out by the British Legation in Budapest.

Mr. Younger: All the British Council's work in Hungary has been terminated, and no part of it is continued through His Majesty's Legation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN INSTITUTE, LONDON

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what work of the Hungarian Institute in London has now ceased altogether; and what work which the Institute did is now carried out by other Hungarian organisations in London.

Mr. Younger: The work of the Hungarian Cultural Institute, which has now ceased to operate, included lecture meetings, displays of books and newspapers, readings of Hungarian poetry and on one occasion a Hungarian art exhibition.

As regards the second part of the Question, no other Hungarian organisation has taken over the work of the Institute so far as I am aware.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that he ought to put himself more closely in touch with the facts—that the work that was done by the Hungarian Institute is now being done by the Hungarian Club, as I said last week? Will he look most carefully into their activities to see whether there should not be a check put on them?

Mr. Younger: We have been looking at these activities, and I am aware of the statement the hon. and gallant Member made last week and has repeated today. If he would care to back up that statement with some evidence, we should be very glad to look at it.

Major Beamish: I certainly will.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIPOLITANIA (BRITISH POLICE OFFICERS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what contract British police officers are serving in Tripolitania; whether he is aware of their anxiety that their services may soon be dispensed with; and what arrangements are being made to ensure that suitable employment on a contract basis will be found.

Mr. Younger: British police officers in the British Administration in Tripolitania are serving on short-term contracts. I am well aware of the anxiety of these officers as to their future. Their continuance in employment with the Foreign Office Administration of African Territories after 31st December, 1951, will depend on the existence of suitable vacancies elsewhere in that Administration. Where it is not practicable so to absorb individuals, efforts will be made to find them other suitable employment.

Major Beamish: Will the Minister bear in mind that these officers have given the best years of their lives to important and dangerous work, and that it would be most unfair for them to find themselves out of work in 1951? Will he do all he can, in co-operation with the Colonial Office and other Department, to find them suitable employment?

Mr. Younger: We do our best, but the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that some of these are contracting services and we cannot always guarantee further employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Canadian Bacon Supplies

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the West Indian Dependencies are restricted from buying Canadian bacon.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Imports of Canadian bacon into the West Indies are restricted by import licensing to the amounts necessary in the light of the territories requirements, the supply position of this commodity and the need to save dollars.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the United Kingdom imports quantities of bacon from Canada, the West Indies are restricted from buying pig products, which are the staple food of the working classes? Will he take some steps to remedy the situation?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think the position is as the hon. Member states, but if he has any details I will look into them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is not this rather absurd situation further evidence of the crying need for an Imperial economic conference?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that the Governments and peoples of the Colonial territories are fully seized, as we are, of the importance to conserve dollar imports.

Sir Peter Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Canadians are very disturbed about interference with their trade with the West Indies, and quote it to us when we do business with them?

Mr. Griffiths: I have no information about that.

Leeward Islands (Dock Strike)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will

make a statement on the situation in the Leeward Islands arising from the dock strike.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The strike was called by the Antigua Trades and Labour Union on 3rd April. After repeated attempts at conciliation had been made the Governor intervened personally, and on 5th May work was resumed with the agreement of both parties to the establishment of a Port Labour Committee. During the last week of the strike work in the sugar factory and on harvesting had to be stopped owing to congestion of storage space. It is, nevertheless, hoped that the whole crop can be harvested before the autumn rains.

Mr. Donner: In view of the serious situation in these Islands, culminating in the resignation of the Governor, will the right hon. Gentleman say what instructions the Governor had to interfere effectively and why did he not do it in time?

Mr. Griffiths: The Governor intervened very quickly, and as a consequence this strike was settled.

Sir H. Williams: Was the Governor victimised?

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strike stopped before the Governor intervened?

Mr. Griffiths: His intervention was successful, and we ought to be glad of that.

FLOODS, WINNIPEG (MESSAGES TO CANADA)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement.
I think that the House will wish to know that I have sent the following message to Mr. St. Laurent, the Prime Minister of Canada:
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I should like to convey to you the deep concern with which we have learned of the serious floods in Winnipeg. Please express our heartfelt sympathy with those who have suffered in the catastrophe.
I am sure that all sides of the House would wish to be joined with His Majesty's Government in this expression of sympathy at this serious disaster.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: I am sure that the House will be glad that the Prime Minister sent that message. We have all watched with the deepest sympathy and concern this disaster to one of Canada's greatest cities. We would like to feel that we were doing something more. I do not know whether there is any other practical help or assistance we can give or whether the Government have considered that. Even if it were help only of a token kind we should like to send it, and I am sure the Prime Minister would, too. The only other thing that I would like to suggest is this: some of us will remember the generous messages of help and encouragement received during the war from the Canadian Parliament once or twice, when things were not very good for us, and I am wondering whether, in addition to the message which the Prime Minister has sent, it would not be appropriate for you, Mr. Speaker, to send a message to the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament on behalf of all of us in this House.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that if there is any assistance we can give to Canada in this disaster we shall certainly give it. I think that the other suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is a very good one.

Mr. Eden: Would you, Mr. Speaker, say whether you think that this suggestion might be carried out?

Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House in this matter. If the House would wish me to send such a telegram I shall be delighted to do so.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Canadian Government supported the Lord Mayor's Fund for our flood victims in 1947, and that if we could forgo some of the food gifts from Canada in order to make some contribution I am sure those who suffered from floods in this country would be glad to support it?

HERRING PRICES

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the subject of herring prices.
The Government have carefully considered the request of the herring fishermen for a subsidy sufficient to guarantee a price of 70s. per cran to be paid for all herring landed irrespective of usage and they have reached the conclusion that they would not be justified in acceding to this request.
They have, however, agreed with the request of the Herring Industry Board that they should be permitted to fix a minimum price of 70s. a cran on first sale of herring for freshing and kippering. It has also been arranged that the Board would resume forthwith payment at the rate of 35s. a cran for herring purchased for conversion to meal and oil.

Mr. Grimond: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether his Department have still under consideration the very high cost of gear, which is one of the chief reasons for the fisherman's demand for higher prices, and whether he can make any statement on the deliberations of the committee which he set up to inquire into the fishing industry?

Mr. Fraser: I am quite unable to make any statement at the moment.

Mr. Duthie: In view of the very poor prospects for the sale of cured herrings in Continental markets, will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to impress on the Minister of Food the need for the greatest consumption of herring, fresh and in kipper form, in this country, so that the season will yield a bonus to the well deserving fishermen?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: I take it that the hon. Gentleman's answer, which will be received with satisfaction in Northern Scotland, does not mean that the Government regard this as the conclusion of the matter. Will they continue every effort to find outlets and markets for herrings both at home and abroad?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that this will give very great satisfaction to fishermen in the North of Scotland, and that the Government are to be complimented on the quick and urgent action which they have taken?

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is the Minister satisfied that the steps taken by


the Government are sufficient to enable the herring fleet to operate without loss?

Mr. Fraser: I think so, but one can never be absolutely certain. One does not know what the catches will be, but we think that this is a reasonable settlement.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister considered the suggestion that a subsidy should be paid to cover the carriage of

white fish from the North of Scotland to the South?

Mr. Fraser: That is another question. I have been dealing only with the herring problem.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing opinion among fishermen that de-control was a mistake, and will he consider some more positive measures to replace the present policy?

Orders of the Day — COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of damage affecting certain dwelling-houses and caused by subsidence resulting from the working and getting of coal and other minerals worked with coal, and for the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) in respect of the period beginning with the passing of the said Act and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, of grants to the National Coal Board not exceeding one half of the amount of the additional expenditure incurred in that period by the Board by virtue of the said Act in or in connection with the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of subsidence damage to any dwelling-house to which the said Act applies or to any building comprising such a dwelling-house and the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage, or one million five hundred thousand pounds, whichever is the less;
(b) in respect of any subsequent calendar year, of grants to the National Coal Board not exceeding one half of the additional expenditure so incurred in that year, or two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, whichever is the less;
(c) of the remuneration of any assessor summoned, or the expense of any remit made, in proceedings under the said Act.
In this Resolution the expression 'subsidence damage' means damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal or any other mineral which is worked with coal, and the reference to subsidence damage to any dwelling-house or building shall be construed as including a reference to subsidence damage to any structure, sewer, drain or installation within the curtilage of that dwelling-house or building.

"Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(DUTY OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS AND MAKE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE TO DWELLING- HOUSES.)

3.37 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, at end, to insert:
apparent on or.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed this Amendment with the next one, in line 8, leave out "occurring," and insert "evidence of which first became apparent."

Sir P. Spens: I was going to suggest that, as they are very closely connected. The Committee will no doubt realise that the object of the first Amendment is to get over the major deficiency in this Bill. This Bill is governed in Clauses 1 and 2 and elsewhere by the fact that if it is left as it is at present the only housing which will obtain any benefit from the proposal will be that very small class of houses in respect of which it will be possible to prove on some future date that the subsidence damage occurred on or after 1st January, 1947.
There cannot be any person in this Committee familiar with our villages and towns where subsidence is known, who is not aware that there are hundreds and probably thousands of houses standing today with cracks in their walls and roofs, with windows that will not shut and doors that will not open, about which it is impossible to say when the subsidence damage occurred, but which all of us know, in the greater number of cases, were damaged before 1st January, 1947.
I cannot but believe that everybody in those areas who owns a house of that sort believes that the Bill will do something for him. If the Bill stands as it is worded it is one of the greatest illusions that has ever been put before the country. It is put forward as a Measure which will do a great deal of good in those mining areas, but when people realise the small percentage of houses which it will affect


they will find themselves deluded. The Bill will be pure waste of time by this Committee if it is allowed to go through as it is at present.
My first point is to put forward the proposal that all houses where damage was apparent on 1st January, 1947, shall be brought into the scope of the Bill. At any rate, that would do a vast amount of good to a large number of people. Without it, I do not think that the Bill is worth the bother of going on with.
The second point is that I realise that the Bill brings in a large number of other houses and that it may well mean that the maximum figure authorised by the Financial Resolution will be reached It may even be that the Resolution will provide less than half the total expenditure and that a certain amount of expense will be passed on to the National Coal Board. I was comforted by the speech made on the Second Reading by the hon. Baronet who is a Member of the Turner Committee. He pointed out that, taking existing houses at the time when the Committee reported, it was not going to be very expensive to repair them. Bringing in houses where there was apparent damage on 1st January will mean that even this hard-up Government ought to be able to find sufficient funds to meet the expense. I do not expect that the cost will be so great that this provision cannot be brought in.
I have reason to believe from something which I have read today in one of the papers that this proposal will be met by a refusal. If so, I want to appeal not to the humanity of His Majesty's Government, for that seems useless, but to quite a different feeling. As a lawyer, I am going to ask them to consider the different phrases put into the Bill and to realise that because of those differences of wording it is impossible to know what the Bill covers and what it does not cover.
First of all, anyone who knows anything about this subject will be aware that subsidence very often starts deep down in the body of the earth. Everybody knows that stratum after stratum gradually collapses and that finally there are signs on the surface. When those signs first start, nobody knows Where they will end and how greatly they will increase. What does the phrase used in Clause 1 mean? It is:

Subsidence damage occurring on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.
I am certain that some mining Members will be able to give us their view. I, as a lawyer who has merely had to deal with mining cases in the years past, can only say that subsidence damage that occurs to a dwelling on 1st January must have started before that date.
3.45 p.m.
Does the phrase mean that, on that date, some subsidence started below the foundations but has not yet affected them? Does it mean that subsidence had already affected the foundations quite unknown to the people living in the house, or that cracks had appeared? Does it mean that cracks had occurred in the foundations on or after the 1st January, or in the walls, doors and windows, something that was visible and apparent at that date? The damage may have occurred on that date but the subsidence must automatically have occurred before that date.
That is the first phrase I want to deal with. Hon. Members will see that it is qualified a little later in the same subsection, where the phrase used is:
subsidence damage occurring to or affecting any dwelling-house.
It is easy enough to know what "occurring to" means, but what in the world is "subsidence damage affecting any dwelling-house"? Does it mean affecting the structure, or the ground around it, or a shed in the garden; or what does it mean? Finally, if we look at Clause 2 we will find that the Government leave out "affecting."

The Chairman: The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman should deal with the precise Amendment before the Committee and should not go further into another Clause.

Sir P. Spens: I must point out, Major Milner, with great respect, that a different phrase is used in Clause 2 and a different one still in the definition Clause. I am trying to point out that the words in Clause 1 are not clear in consequence, and raise a great issue. By putting in the word "apparent" I hope to define quite clearly what the subsidence damage has to be. I hope therefore that I may be allowed to go on. I want to point out that Clause 2 simply says:
where any subsidence damage occurred…to any dwelling-house.


That may be a narrower phrase. The definition Clause at the end of the Bill, Clause 15, says:
'subsidence damage' means structural damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal or any other mineral which is worked with coal, but does not include damage caused as the result of the working and getting of coal and other minerals, if the working and getting of the coal is ancillary to the working of those other minerals.
The definition Clause simply obscures everything that goes in front of it. There are two phrases in Clause 1, a different phrase in Clause 2, and then one in the definition Clause, which may either minimise or magnify the damage.
I would say to the Government: For goodness sake let us be certain that we include all houses in respect of which damage was apparent on 1st January, 1947, or became apparent thereafter. Then we shall know exactly with what we are dealing. If we leave it as it is we do not know which houses will be included and which will not. There may be a house where damage started on 1st January, but two doors away it may have started before 1st January. The house two doors away will be outside the scope of the Bill and the one where the damage started later will come within its provisions.
The result of the Bill will be a matter of "pick and choose" between certain dwelling-houses in a row according to what occurred on or after 1st January, 1947. That will be frightfully unsatisfactory from every point of view. We want to make quite certain that all houses where damage was obvious and where the people knew that there was damage on 1st January, 1947, come within the provisions of the Bill.

Colonel Lancaster: I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has said. I should also like to call in aid a recommendation of the Turner Committee. If the Minister will look at paragraph 96 on page 26 of the Turner Report, he will see that it recommended that all subsidence which became manifest on or since 1st January should be compensated. In drafting the Clause the Minister has departed from the very strong recommendation of the Turner Committee in this regard.
In introducing the Bill to the House the Minister made some very wise remarks. He said that subsidence was a capricious matter and that there was no exact science in regard to it. He went on to propound a number of observations in regard to subsidence—presumably supplied by his Department—many of which were quite unexceptionable, but he made one observation with which I do not find myself in complete agreement, and in this regard I believe that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and other hon. Members opposite who are familiar with this problem.
The Minister said that subsidence may occur several years after the working of the coal and will then go on for a few months. I do not think I could agree with that. It may occur, as the Minister said, several years after the working of the coal, but it can go on—and very frequently does—for a number of years. The full effect of subsidence may not be felt for a number of years after it has occurred, or become manifest or, as we have suggested, it is apparent. Any attempt to stand by the Clause as at present drafted would not only cause a great deal of distress but would be completely inequitable to those affected by it. If we do not substitute some such word as "apparent" or "manifest" we shall, as my hon. and learned Friend said, have people gaining the benefit of the Bill while people living two doors away get no benefit, whereas exactly the same occurrence has affected all the houses in the street.
I have had some experience of subsidence in its various forms. Sometimes it appears to be at one moment very much worse than is eventually found to be the case. I remember the case of a large mansion which has since been taken over by the National Coal Board. At one moment one could see completely through the house. A long wall face had been worked under one part of the house. At a subsequent period another panel was worked out under the house, and the house came together. The final bill for putting that house right was a matter of a few pounds for a little plastering and a little painting although at one moment the trouble appeared to be of considerable gravity. Subsidence can affect houses in all sorts of ways. As the Minister said, it is a very capricious matter.
We shall only get a sense of justice if it is made perfectly clear to all who will be affected by the Bil that it is not just what happened on 1st January, 1947, but something which was either manifest or apparent on that date or subsequently. We cannot define precisely the effect of subsidence. The Minister acknowledged that in great measure when he introduced the Bill, saying that there was no exact science and that it was a capricious matter. Yet when he drafts the Clauses he tries to make them precise, and in doing so he is doing a disservice not only to his own Bill but to all the people who will be affected by it. I most strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. Blyton: The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) has illustrated to the Committee that subsidence plays various tricks with houses, but I have never known subsidence play such queer tricks as the Opposition are playing today in the Amendments which they have on the Order Paper. Throughout the years they have never brought forward a Measure to deal with this problem, and when any Measure was brought forward they damned it with faint praise and defeated it in the Lobbies. When for the first time this Government comes to establish by statute some provision in relation to mining subsidence the Tory Party say, "We have mended our ways now that we are not in charge. The coal owners are not there, so we will fight for all we can get out of the Bill."
I hope the Minister does not accept the Amendment. I will say why. I think I know more about this subject than the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken)——

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch) indicated dissent.

Mr. Blyton: —because I have lived my life among this thing and he has only seen it when he has been passing in a train at 60 miles an hour.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman's wit is a little heavy. He says that he has seen this thing all the days of his life. Well, he has now got a comfortably padded career. I have to deal with the problem of subsidence every day of my life and, feeling strongly about it, I

backed the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman, who is, after all, the miner's champion, must make up his mind at some stage or another to remember his past promises. I know something about subsidence, and I think he does too, but he has abandoned his principles in order to back this wretched Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: The right hon. Gentleman says that I have a padded career. At least I worked for 32 years in the pit, and I hope I am entitled to a little rest now.

Mr. Bracken: After the next election the hon. Member will get it.

Mr. Blyton: I would advise the right hon. Gentleman at the next election to leave Bournemouth and test me out in my division.

Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Gentleman wants to fight Bournemouth, he is entiled to try, but I may tell him that the miners who backed him in the past will repudiate him at the next election because he has betrayed his promises.

Mr. Blyton: I am asking the Minister to reject this Amendment for one or two reasons. If we put in the word "apparent" every house that was shored up under private enterprise of the mines from 1920 in certain parts of County Durham, where they refused to do anything, would be eligible because the subsidence would be apparent on the 1st January, 1947.
Therefore hon. Members opposite are asking the Government and the Coal Board to carry a huge liability which the private owners refused to accept when the Tory Party supported them in the days that have gone. I say to the miners on this side of the Committee, and I shall say it to the miners in my constituency, that the first charge on our industry is not to carry the liabilities that private enterprise have refused to accept, but to see that the lower-paid men get better pay and to see that superannuation schemes are brought in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not on this Clause."] If we take money from the National Coal Board for this purpose we shall be retarding the advance of the men working in the pits on these matters.
We on this side of the Committee have read in the "Daily Express" this morn-


ing about the revolt in the miners' group. I say to my friends that we will not play the Tory game after their years of neglect. This is not a useless Bill, a great illusion, as the first speaker said. It means to many of our people, as well as to landlords, that where the rateable value is £32 or less, that which they did not receive in the past, they will now receive. Mining subsidence starts at the bottom. There cannot be subsidence on the surface unless there is excavation underneath. That is elementary knowledge. The fact is that subsidence will probably not show itself for many years, but it may show itself inside three months. Near a fault it will show itself much sooner than in other parts of the coalfield. Therefore, if coal was excavated in 1940 and the subsidence starts to show now, under this Bill those people will be eligible after 1st January, 1947.
I suggest that this is a dangerous Amendment in its effect, and that it is likely to saddle the Coal Board with an expenditure of thousands of pounds which would have to come from the revenue and would thereby defer an increase of wages for our lower-paid men as well as deferring the miners' charter, while helping those people its obligations to whom, private enterprise, when it owned the mines, refused to recognise.

Mr. David Grenfell: Is the Bill designed to correct all those omissions and neglect of past owners?

Mr. Blyton: This Bill proposes for the first time in history——

Mr. Grenfell: What will the party do then to remedy the damage which had become manifest so long ago?

Mr. Blyton: Mining subsidence is no worse in Wales than in any other coal field. This Bill provides that where subsidence occurs on or after 1st January, 1947, which is the date that the Turner Committee recommended, everybody will come within its purview and will get their repairs done.

Mr. Grenfell: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "done before 1st January, 1947"? Why not for the whole of the recommendation of the Turner Committee?

Mr. Blyton: Before 1st January, 1947, means that hon. Members opposite want to carry a liability of private enterprise to the Coal Board, which was something they refused to do to private enterprise.

Mr. Grenfell: Mr. Grenfell rose——

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must not get into the wider provisions of the Bill. This is quite a restricted Amendment.

Mr. Blyton: The Turner Committee is quite definite in saying that the commencing date should be 1st January, 1947, and that has been incorporated in the Bill.
Finally, I say to the Minister that to give way on this would mean deferring the demands of our men for a long time, and I ask him not to accept the burden which private enterprise refused. I hope he will carry his Bill and that, when the economic situation is better, the report of the Turner Committee will be fully implemented. The liability of the Board will be £1 million a year, £2 million will come from the State, and then we shall be able to meet the recommendations of the Turner Committee. Meanwhile, we as miners' M.Ps have to choose whether to get this, which is the maximum we can get, or see the Bill defeated by supporting the Tories and watch our people getting nothing as a result of those endeavours.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). Not only was it inaccurate, but it struck me as positively dangerous because he was criticising his own Front Bench.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): That is not dangerous in our party.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Member has read the "Daily Express", which I am sure he has, it seems to be very dangerous. No doubt the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring will remember that there were three Bills, in 1937, 1938, and 1939, all dealing with this question. When he says that we on this side defeated the Mining Subsidence Bill before the war, I hope he will look back at HANSARD, when he will see that on


27th February, 1939, a Mining Subsidence Bill was given a Second Reading, a Bill actually introduced by the present Minister of Education——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Why was it not proceeded with?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not yet discovered that there happened to be a war soon after which made a slight difference to the progress of Private Bills.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The Bill was opposed from the Front Bench of the Tory Party on the Friday afternoon when it was carried.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back at that Debate he will see that certain provisions in his Bill were objected to by the Front Bench on this side of the House but, on the whole, it was the attitude of hon. Members on this side that the Bill should have a Second Reading provided certain Amendments were made at a later stage. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that, I hope he will say so, because I have tried to give what I believe to be a fair summary of that Debate.

Mr. Tomlinson: It was definitely carried by 12 votes, in spite of the opposition of the Conservative Party.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was just coming to that question, and I should like to look at Clause 1 of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of 1939. He will see that it contained the words:
and such damage is manifest and unrepaired at the passing of this Act.
Those are the very words, only they are much wider, for which we are asking this afternoon.
The position strikes me as being even more curious when I look at the Division list to see how hon. Members opposite voted upon the Bill. They were led by the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Health, of course the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Education, and also, be it noted, the Minister of Fuel and Power; he voted for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who voted against it?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education stressed in his speech at the time—I have the quotation here; there are about two columns of HANSARD on this very point—it was quite impossible to introduce a Bill in which this problem of damage which was apparent on the date on which the Bill was brought into force, should not be taken into account.
Now the Minister of Fuel and Power introduces a Bill which ignores that fundamental point which was so much stressed by his right hon. Friend in moving the Bill in 1939. Is that consistent? The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring makes an impassioned plea to miners to support him and tries to throw the thing back upon private enterprise. This, however, will be subject to a later Amendment when we come to consider dates from which claims for subsidence damage should lie. I say to the hon. Member that that is quite the wrong principle that we should now be discussing. What we are discussing is the simple and narrow issue of whether we can have any fair measure of compensation under the Bill unless, as the Minister of Education admitted, a word like "apparent" or "manifest" is used.
From the way in which Members of the Front Bench opposite went into the Division Lobby in 1939, their attitude today is quite non-understandable by anybody in the House, whether he be on this side, because of the criticisms we have heard of the past, or on the other side, because of the wholehearted support which hon. Members opposite gave in 1939 to a much wider Bill. I hope that the Minister of Education is now coming to the Box and will explain to us how he, as a Member of the Government, in view of what he said in 1939, can now admit that all that he fought for then is false and that the present Bill is satisfactory and sufficient.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I have listened with a great deal of amazement and almost of disbelief to some of the things which have come from the other side this afternoon. One of the first questions that springs to my mind is this. If there has been such deep and apparently passionate concern for the effects of mining subsidence upon dwelling houses, why has not some Measure been placed upon the Statute Book to


provide for the victims of this damage in all the years in which we have had a mining industry and during the greater portion of which we have had Tory Governments?

Mr. Bracken: What about the last Parliament?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) referred to a Measure which was introduced in 1939. Had he said 1839, I should have attached some importance to it as evidence of the concern of Tory Governments for the effects of mining subsidence. Did our mining industry start only in 1939? I was brought up in South Wales, and I remember the effects of mining subsidence in the valleys of that part of the country——

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we really cannot go into all the past history of this matter. I allowed a reference to the Bill of 1939 because it appeared to deal with the specific point which was before the Committee, but we cannot go into the general question on this Amendment.

Mr. Bracken: On that point of Order, Major Milner, may I ask whether this will rule out the opportunity for the Minister of Education, who has twice interrupted and referred to that Bill, to make the speech that we should like him to make?

The Chairman: We shall deal with that question when it arises.

Mr. Pickthorn: Upon that point of Order, Major Milner, may I ask your guidance? I do not wish to put it in a positive sense, but surely we should not be compelled to assume that that means that there cannot be as much going back into previous history from this side of the Committee as there has already been from the other side. There have been one or two matters raised which, I would submit, have now become relevant to the Debate on the Amendment, however much they might have been questioned had it not been for the speeches made from the benches opposite.

Mr. Bracken: And interruptions by the Minister of Education.

4.15 p.m.

The Chairman: That, again, is a matter with which we can deal when it arises. I have endeavoured to allow both sides to go as far as I think it is desirable to go.

Mr. Thomas: I promise that I shall not disturb the dry bones of Tory misrule as far back as 1839.
What I have already said is merely a prelude to the pertinent point which arises in connection with the Amendment, and it is this. The Bill is related, in regard to compensation for mining subsidence, to the date on which the National Coal Board assumed the responsibility of our nationalised coal industry. I submit, and I think that I speak for this side in doing so, that it would be unjust to saddle the Coal Board with liabilities which should properly have been undertaken by the previous owners of the industry but which were absolutely ignored. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment is totally irrelevant and unjust and should not be accepted, and I am sure that it will not be accepted.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the Committee for having arrived a few minutes late, and I am not quite certain whether we are debating the second Amendment—[Interruption.]. I am not quite certain, Major Milner, whether we are now debating the second as well as the first Amendment.

The Chairman: The Chairman indicated assent.

Mr. Pickthorn: It seems to me that the effects of either of these Amendments are not easy to follow at all. The thing is a little like subsidence itself—it is not so easy as might appear from first sight to say what will be the likely ultimate effect. I should have thought that, on the whole, the second was the better of the two Amendments, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think that they are in some way bound by party or professional preconceptions to be sure that the second, anyway, is mistaken. I would suggest that it may perhaps be right.
I wonder whether possibly we may hope that now we have done the sort of ritual war dance that always appears to be necessary when mines are mentioned in this Chamber, we may really not go on much more from either side either with Tory neglect in the past or with the general wickedness of private


enterprise, or even with moral comparisons between (a) mining workers, (b) mine owners and (c) the rest of God's creatures. I hope that possibly we may leave some of that out. But there is one point which, I think, is relevant strictly to the Amendments, and certainly is relevant to the arguments which have been put from the other side, and which I hope I may be allowed, therefore, to indicate very shortly.
I refer to the argument, why was this not done 50 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10 years ago? I wish to indicate part of the answer shortly, because I do not want to go too wide of the actual Amendment; shortness will be easier for me if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) does not assist me. The short point in answer to that argument is that there are advantages and disadvantages in the socialisation of coal mining. It is not for us now to discuss which are the more important and, for the purposes of today's argument, I am quite ready to concede that socialisation, nationalisation, was absolutely inevitable and that on balance it does much more good than harm. However that may be, there are advantages and disadvantages in the method.
One of the advantages, I should have thought, was that there were remedies open to persons suffering from subsidence before at the common law and under con tract and so on. But there were various reasons why those remedies were frequently inapplicable, or inadequate, the most obvious perhaps being that in some cases, or in many cases, because of the form of contract entered into between the owners of the surface and of the workings underneath, the persons causing the damage and the persons suffering the damage were the same and therefore there was no necessity for compensation between the two and, as a result of that, it may be that houses were allowed to fall into decay——

Mr. Mainwaring: On a point of Order. What in the world has this to do with the choice of words between the proposed Amendment and the words in the Bill?

The Chairman: I think I may say that the arguments have as much to do with the matter as some of the arguments

which were put from the other side of the Committee. That is the difficulty into which the Committee get when they stray from the strict letter of the Amendment. I have allowed the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) to go so far, but I do not think it is really necessary, even in reply to what was said from the other side, to go into the matter in such detail and, if he would now deal with the point at issue, we could make some progress.

Mr. Pickthorn: I respectfully entirely agree with you, Major Milner, and very largely with the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). Detail is a matter not easily susceptible to exact evaluation, but as to length I do not think the time I have spent on this point has been longer than that which has been spent on it from the other side, I hope I have made plain that that argument ought not to be used against this Amendment and that is the strict relevance of what I have said.
Now, for good and for ill, and I am willing to admit overwhelmingly for good if that pleases hon. Members opposite, for the purposes of this argument, coal mining is entirely nationalised and, surely, the one thing that matters about houses in mining districts damaged by subsidence is that they should be mended. In the condition of shortage of houses that there is in England, those houses should not go unmended; and further where we fix the date is arbitrary and whether we say damage occurring or damage apparent done by that date is a matter we could argue forever because I do not think there is much real argument in it. I think it is a rather arbitrary thing and the over-riding consideration seems to me that within practical possibilities the Bill should so provide that the maximum number of houses is likely to be put and kept in repair.
I hope that seems a reasonable way to approach this Bill. I do not assert to the Committee that I have wholly understood what would be the exact effect of the first or the second of these Amendments, but I think that on the criterion I have just suggested to the Committee there would be more houses put and kept in repair, especially if the second one were accepted, than under the Bill as drafted. I therefore suggest that the onus of proof on anyone resisting this


Amendment is to show that that is wrong, and that what I have just said is mistaken, and I would respectfully suggest at the same time, as I began my suggesting, that going back into our respective wickednesses in the past will not get us very much further on that essentially narrow point.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who moved the Amendment, began by saying that the Bill in its present form would not be worth passing unless we accepted his proposed Amendments. On Second Reading he did not say that. He congratulated the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on having got something improved. My hon. Friends who represent mining areas in this country, who are primarily concerned, think this is worth while and the House thought it worth while when they agreed to the Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Member raised two separate points. The first was the meaning of the word "occurred" and whether the language in the first Clause is consistent with the language in the second Clause and in the definition Clause, Clause 15, and whether the three together make sense; whether they are right or whether we ought to change them and meet his view to ensure that certain people will be given rights who under our present phraseology will be cut out. The hon. and learned Member's second point was—and of course it is the effect of the Amendment—that this should be made retrospective to the beginning of coal mining in this country and that any damage due to subsidence apparent on 1st January, 1947, should be repaired by the National Coal Board under the provisions of this Bill.
I shall deal with the two points separately. "Subsidence damage occurring"; we believe that is absolutely clear and absolutely consistent with the language in Clause 2 and with the language in Clause 15. I think that was the phrase the hon. and learned Member used. We have not spoken anywhere of when subsidence occurs; we have said, "when subsidence damage occurs," and, of course, the subsidence may have been at any time. On Second Reading I was

asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) if damage which happened in his constituency as a result of water being let out of workings which had happened 40 years ago would be included under the Bill and the answer was yes, because the damage that happened was since 1st January, 1947. It does not matter at all when the workings were; what matters is when the damage occurs.
Is there any difference in the phrase in which "occurring" is used—in the Turner Report the phrase becomes "manifest"—or the hon. and learned Member's phrase "is first apparent"? We do not believe there is any difference. If a case is made on this we are perfectly ready to consider it and put in the language which will ensure the result we all want, namely, that people who suffer from damage which happens to their houses, which is first seen in their houses, and which can first be proved to have occurred in their houses on or after 1st January, 1947, shall receive repairs or compensation. That is what we want and we think it quite clear and we will take any words which make it absolutely clear if hon. Members opposite can satisfy us that there is something better than the words we have got. But we think, our language is all right and we must have a very strong argument before we, shall change it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster), who supported the Amendment, said that subsidence was very capricious, but sometimes goes on not only over a period of months, but for a period of years. That is quite true. He said it might happen in a single street that some houses would get compensation under this Bill while others would not. That may happen with some of the retrospective claims. We go back to 1947. It will not happen with any future claims; they will be covered. With retrospective claims there may be some anomalies of this kind; there are bound to be anomalies in any piece of legislation which is passed. I do not apologise for the fact that there are some anomalies; I do not see how they can be avoided. I only say that I think those anomalies of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke will be extremely rare.
4.30 p.m.
The main question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and spoken to by my hon. Friends and by other hon. Members opposite, is whether this should be retrospective only to 1st January, 1947, or further back into history. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Hendon, South, said, as someone said this afternoon, that the establishment of the Coal Board had made it easier to deal with subsidence. The Turner Committee said it, and it is very true. Certainly it changed the attitude of the Opposition. I shall not say anything about that, because I have striven at all stages so far, and I shall to the end strive, to be as uncontroversial on this Bill as possible. I want this Bill to be in the best possible form.
Of course, the establishment of the National Coal Board has changed the problem, and it is therefore logical, prima facie, to take vesting date as the date back to which retrospective claims shall be allowed. The rights and obligations of the Coal Board begin on 1st January, 1947. If there is imposed upon them, as we are imposing, a heavy retrospective burden, it is surely right that that burden should begin with their responsibilities. As my hon. Friend said, it would be illogical to impose on them responsibility for what has not been done under existing law by their predecessors. In any case, in any legislation of this kind it is essential to have some date back to which it goes in order to limit the administrative burden. The Turner Committee thought it was right. That is why they said——

Sir P. Spens: I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what the Turner Committee said. They said two things:
(a) all subsidence damage which became manifest on or since the 1st January, 1947, whether such damage has since been repaired or not; and
(b) all subsidence damage"—
and this is what my Amendment goes to—
which had become manifest before the 1st January, 1947"—
and therefore was manifest on 1st January—
provided that such damage was unrepaired on that date and was capable of repair at reasonable expense"—

which is contained in a later Clause—
so as to render the dwelling-house fit for occupation as such.
There should be no mistake at all that the Government are refusing that subparagraph of those recommendations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall deal with both sub-paragraphs of Paragraph 96 of the Turner Report. They said in sub-paragraph (a) that compensation limited to the cost of repair should be given for subsidence damage which had become manifest on or since 1st January, 1947. That is what we are doing in this Bill for small dwelling-houses.

Sir P. Spens: What about sub-paragraph (b)?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am coming to subparagraph (b) later. Now why did they propose that? Why did we think it right to go back as far as that? As I have said, the establishment of the Coal Board was one change. The establishment of the Turner Committee was also an important factor; it stimulated and sharpened the hopes of people whose houses were damaged by subsidence after that date; after the Committee was set up those people became conscious that the Government thought something ought to be done for them. As damage has happened since then, as the cost of repairs has fallen on them, they harboured some hope of relief, and there would be bitter disappointment if we did nothing for them. Therefore, as the Turner Committee want it, we propose to do it.
The Turner Committee also added subparagraph (b) which the hon. and learned Member has read out, but I would call particular attention to the proviso. Something is to be done for these people
provided that such damage was unrepaired on that date,
and provided that the house
was capable of repair at reasonable expense so as to render the dwelling-house fit for occupation as such.
We have not adopted that. Why? It would be infinitely difficult to administer; it would cut out most of the claimants, especially those with a really good case; all houses which had been so damaged by subsidence as to be past hope of repair at any reasonable cost would be cut out.


Of course, that would be very contentious, but the Coal Board would go to the courts on many cases if it had to, and very often it would win. In any case, a very large number of cases would be cut out.
Secondly, everything on which repairs had been done would get nothing. Now what is the result of that? It is that an owner-occupier who has repaired his own house at his own expense gets nothing, while a bad landlord who has done no repairs but left the people living in slums would get paid. Is that equitable? Nobody, I think, would suggest that that ought to be adopted. I do not know how the Turner Committee came to draw up that recommendation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon, South will tell us. Anyway, it is quite inequitable and we could not accept it. If we did anything beyond 1st January, 1947, we should have to take in all the claims, which is indeed what the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South proposes to do. He has not proposed the recommendation of the Turner Report. He proposes to go far beyond it and to include all claims going right back into history for all classes of property.

Sir P. Spens: No.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Well, within the scope of the Bill——

Mr. Bracken: All dwelling-houses.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that is open to grave, and indeed fatal, objections. First, there is the administrative difficulty of which I have already spoken. To go back into history, even to add a few years, however strong the case for doing so might be, would add a multitude of claims, and in every case we should have to check the validity of those claims to find: Was the damage really due to subsidence? How much of the damage or of the dilapidation was due to subsidence or to other natural causes? What was the condition of the house before the subsidence damage appeared? What was the date of the damage? All those things would be extremely difficult to determine, as the hon. and learned Member knows, and——

Mr. Bracken: Is there a limit to justice?

Mr. Noel-Baker: —however much one goes back, it becomes harder to do. The experience of the War Damage Commission ought surely to teach us that. If we did that it might well be that the machinery of the Coal Board would be so over-strained that the chance of dealing with claims since 1947 would be compromised. Indeed, I think it would probably prove to be impossible to weed out the claims put forward by people whose houses were dilapidated not as a result of subsidence at all, and many of those people would probably succeed in getting compensation which this House never intended that they should have.
The other objection is financial. If we reject the proposal of the Turner Committee, as does the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, if we include all small houses damaged, it would add, ex hypothesi, another £500,000 a year to the burden. If we go back into history, what will that become? If we go back only 10 years it adds £5 million. Is anybody suggesting that that burden shall be put upon the Coal Board? My hon. Friends have given the answer. Is anybody suggesting that it shall be put upon the National Exchequer? Surely not hon. Members opposite, after what they said yesterday. In the light of the speeches we have had I think that cannot be upheld from the benches opposite.
The right date for the retrospective operation of our Bill is 1st January, 1947, and we propose to stick to it. It gives a generous measure of retrospective claims. To make it later would disappoint many legitimate hopes: to make it earlier would add to the administrative and the financial burdens of the Coal Board in a way not to be endured.

Mr. Bracken: I have rarely heard a more disappointing or disingenuous speech in this House.

Mr. Messer: The right hon. Gentleman says that every time.

Mr. Bracken: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me a testimonial for consistent truthfulness. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman was in his youth a champion sprinter: in his old age he has become an artful dodger. He has told us in effect that justice must be rationed by the Ministry, that anything that occurred before a certain date must be obliterated. He told us about the


terribly difficult situation of the Treasury. Well, we have been making a few suggestions to the Government about economy which have not been well regarded. I really think that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are connected with the mining industry ought really to deal with the Minister for his statement that there was not enough money in the public till to meet the comparatively trivial amount required by the terms of this Amendment. The Minister is prepared to waste £30 million to £35 million on this mad monkey-nut experiment in Africa, but he will not do justice——

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is saying is far from the subject before the Committee.

Mr. Bracken: I was speaking about folly——

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate presumably that that is not the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Bracken: Certainly the content of the Bill is. The Minister said, so far as one could follow his natural confusion of thought—because he voted for the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Education previously—that he might be willing to consult with the hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee to find a better form of words on the understanding that we do not vote on the Amendment. We are very reasonable people and are quite willing to consult with the Minister—Did the Lord President of the Council wish to say something?,

Mr. Noel-Baker: Might I make it clear that I cannot agree to any change of words which would make the Clause retrospective beyond 1st January. 1947.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister is a peculiar type of grammarian. He has made an offer to consult with my hon. and learned Friend to find a form of words—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, he did not."]—it will be in HANSARD tomorrow——

Mr. Noel-Baker: If there is any obscurity about the word "occurring" meaning "becomes manifest" or "becomes apparent" we will consult about

that, in order to ensure that damage which happens after 1st January, 1947, will be covered. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Member understands that, even if the right hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister is becoming a little perky. He is not now dealing with Seretse Khama.
I wish to revert to the right hon. Gentleman's offer, which was to consult with us—and we are more than willing to consult with him. He says that consultation must be based on a common understanding that the Minister's language in the Bill is obscure. Of course it is, more obscure than the thickest of London fogs. The Minister will have an adequate opportunity of meeting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who is quite capable of giving the Minister some tuition in clarity of expression. On that understanding we shall not vote on this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not."] If hon. Gentlemen want to occupy the whole afternoon with parrot-like interruptions, I am at their service.
I wish to let the Minister into a certain amount of inside history. This Amendment is taken almost word for word from the Private Member's Bill which was introduced by the present Minister of Education in 1939. I have studied the right hon. Gentleman's speech with the greatest interest. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South, made a speech commending this Amendment, which was marked, as one would expect, by both learning and moderation. My hon. and learned Friend has his place in history. He was the last Chief Justice of India, and the only good thing I know about what has happened to India is that he is now happily restored to this House. Out of his great experience he has given wise counsel to the Minister. He reminded him of something about which the right hon. Gentleman did not know before. But one must forgive the right hon. Gentleman. No footballer has ever been transferred more rapidly than he has. He is now in a new Department and does not understand this question of subsidence. My hon. and learned Friend does.
4.45 p.m.
This Amendment is perhaps the most important in the Bill. It is quite impossible for us to accept the Minister's dogmatic view of subsidence. It is not a question of something that occurred 40 years ago; it might occur within six months of the sinking of mine shafts. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is necessary for him to consider the lot of working men who put their money in houses and now see the foundations cracking through subsidence, and all kinds of other disabilities coming their way because of the mysteries of subsidence.
I am hoping for help from hon. Members opposite in putting the Government right about the virtues of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who was an extremely good Secretary for Mines, made a few interruptions. I was hoping that he would make a speech. He thoroughly understands this question, and I hope we shall hear from him. I should have thought that he would be rather inclined to support this Amendment, more especially as we are not taking it to a Division, because for many years now—does the Lord President wish to interrupt? I am not asking for your protection, Major Milner, against the mutterings of the Lord President of the Council, but I can tell him that the hon. Member for Gower is a much more respected Member of his party than he is. However, we must not get away from the point.
I think that we on this side of the Committee are entitled to say that this is an utterly inadequate Bill, that it is mean.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): We are not dealing with the Bill as a whole now.

Mr. Bracken: We are dealing with the principle of it. By this Amendment we hope to put a certain amount of sense into our proceedings. We are trying, through this Amendment, to remedy a mean and miserable piece of legislation. I repeat that we shall not go into the Lobby, so in accepting the Minister's invitation one can make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that they will not go on allowing their lips to be sealed by the Patronage Secretary.

Mining Members really must understand that this matter affects tens of thousands of their constituents, and that this Amendment will bring hope and justice to many homes in this country. That being the case hon. Gentlemen opposite will surely support it. It is a most extraordinary development in Parliament that Members who in the past have expressed the strongest possible support for the principle contained in this Amendment are now mute because they are afraid of being court-martialled upstairs. I hope that their constituents will do them the justice they deserve.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but it appeared to the CHAIRMAN that that Motion was unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The next Amendment I call is in page 1, line 14.

Mr. Raikes: On a point of order. Is it not your intention Sir to call the third Amendment on the Order Paper which is in page 1, line 8, to leave out "January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven," and insert "June, nineteen hundred and forty-one"? Although it was to be answered by the Minister it has not been called.

The Chairman: It seemed to me that that matter had been quite fully discussed in the Debate we have just had. The Committee discussed at some length the question of the date, and it seems to me, therefore, that it is quite proper to pass on to the Amendment to page 1, line 14.

Sir P. Spens: Before we pass on, as you have not actually put the second Amendment Major Milner, may I say that in view of that semi-offer——

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: Order. We cannot go back. It was agreed that the second Amendment should be discussed with the first. In my opinion, it is consequential on the first, and we have therefore disposed of it.

Mr. Bracken: Surely we cannot do much about the third Amendment until it is put to the Committee.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentle man will appreciate that it lies entirely with the Chair whether or not an Amendment is put. Having regard to the con siderations I had in mind, I do not propose to select it. The next Amendment I select——

Mr. Pickthorn: I wish to put this to you, Sir. I fully understand that you are under no obligation whatever to explain your reason for calling or for not calling an Amendment. But you did indicate that the reason for not calling one Amendment was that the question of the date had been discussed at an earlier stage. I would ask you whether it was present to your mind that the Government case was that the Amendment then under discussion would not at all affect the meaning of the Clause. That was their case, and, that being so, the Amendment was not an Amendment for shifting the date.

The Chairman: All the circumstances have, of course, been present to my mind.

Mr. Redmayne: With respect, Sir, may I ask if it is your intention to call the Amendment to page 1, line 18? If so I would suggest that these might be taken together.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The Amendment to page 1, line 14, and the Amendment to page 1, line 18, to leave out from "dwelling" to "and," on page 2, line 3, may be taken together.

Mr. Redmayne: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from "dwelling," to the end of line 15.
It is necessary that I should go over some old ground just to create a framework, and I would remind the Committee of the words with which the Minister presented the Bill on Second Reading. He said it was intended to include all small dwellings used wholly or mainly as dwellings, whether they are houses, flats, maisonettes, tenements, or parts of larger buildings. For the reason that these Amendments are moved, those buildings are, in my opinion, not so included.
Those who framed the Bill have quite obviously been content to interpret the

phrase "mining areas" in its narrowest sense. Indeed, the Minister used that phrase again just now, and it was quite obvious from the way he used it that it was relating strictly to those coal mining areas where coal mining is the major partner in industry, and the main feature of the landscape to which he was referring. In those areas the rateable values are undoubtedly low and probably 99 per cent. of the dwelling-houses are covered. There is no doubt that this threat of subsidence extends far beyond the sight of the pit head or the sight of the smoke, and as a result it does affect areas which, because of their better amenities, are in fact of higher rateable values on the average. There the Bill fails in its object in not including those areas.
To take one area with which I am familiar, the City of Nottingham, I am informed that the Bill achieves a 95 per cent. efficiency in areas likely to be affected by subsidence. We may say that 95 per cent. is sufficient, but at the same time we must realise that the reason it is as high as 95 per cent. is due largely to the fact that the property is terraced property. One could also use the argument that the 5 per cent. left out might in all justice be included; and the cost certainly would not be large.
The district south of the Trent could hardly be called a mining area in the Minister's definition. South of the Trent, the urban district of West Bridgford, is a large residential area in which 75 per cent. of the dwelling-houses which have been or will be liable to subsidence are in fact covered by the £32 rateable value limit in the Bill. Only 75 per cent. are covered, but I am assured that of the remaining dwelling houses in that area, four-fifths are essentially of the character which should be covered and which I am sure it is the intention of the Minister to cover.
I cannot believe, for example, that he has any reason to leave out of the Bill the sort of House, costing £800 or £1,000, built and paid for by mortgage before the war, with three or four bedrooms and lived in by precisely the same people who live in the houses with the £32 rateable value mark. In this district of good rateable value these houses are outside the Bill. If all the houses in that area were included it is quite certain the Minister would not be favouring any district


he would not wish to favour. It would avoid an unnecessary anomaly and ensure that in this Bill we have commonsense.
I would refer to one other class, the small shop properties which are dealt with in the "wholly or mainly" class. Those properties may be occupied dwellings and are in the main hereditaments which may be rated as a whole up to as high as £75 a year. Quite obviously only a small proportion of them, the type of combined shop property, will be included in this Bill, with very grave injustice to the rest. But anomalies do arise at all figures, and some are obvious. It does not matter what limit of rateable value we chose in these areas; the character of the dwelling does not change and the owner does not change. If we make a limit we shall penalise an owner or tenant in regard to some small ambition which he has been able to put into effect, such as the erection of a garage or a 10 per cent. addition to the structure. I wish to stress that this takes place in each type of property and is taking place constantly today when these additions are difficult. When conditions become easier it will constantly create anomalies if the £32 limit is maintained.
5.0 p.m.
A far greater anomaly arises in the case of flats. They are covered by the second of these Amendments. I can quote a fair sample of 20 houses in a suburban area all rated outside the Bill which have recently been reassessed on conversion into flats. Six of these 20 have been let in parts, and each of those parts is under £32 rateable value. Therefore, those six houses qualify. Of the other 14 houses of which 33 flats have been created, 18 flats are under £32, six are under £40 and nine are over £40. Yet, of course, it must be patently obvious that the same sort of people live in all the flats in these houses.
Taken house by house, the anomalies are even more marked. In one of the converted houses all the flats are over £32 rateable value. In four houses out of the 14, all the flats are over £32, but one flat in each house is over £40, and in four other houses one flat in each house is over £32. Houses of this type are familiar to every hon. Member. They are fairly large Victorian villas and, in the normal course of valuation on con-

version, the ground floor is rated higher than the other floors. In some cases, the first floor is rated higher than the floors above. Therefore, we have a situation in which the top floor is repairable for Mr. Smith, and the second floor is repairable for Mr. Brown, but the ground floor flat is "nobody's baby" except in so far as it supports the other two.
As I see it, the first requirement of legislation is that it should make sense, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that in this respect the Bill does not make sense in any way. Another point is that for as long as rent restriction must continue, a landlord of rent restricted property considering this Bill would feel that he should look for protection up to the rent restriction limit of £75 rateable value. Repairs for subsidence are——

The Chairman: I am not altogether clear on this matter. It appears to me that, in any event, the hon. Gentleman is discussing Amendments to line 14 and line 15 together. If so, they appear to be alternatives and I have no objection, but it must be clearly understood what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about rent restriction and rent limits. Clearly that is a matter for the Amendment in line 15.

Mr. Redmayne: I am sorry if I was not clear. I have passed to the second Amendment. I thought that I had your permission Sir to deal with that. They are both on the argument that we should discard these limits altogether, both for houses and flats. Therefore, the argument has got somewhat involved. The sole point I wish to make about rent restriction is that the cost of repairs for subsidence damage will be chargeable as costs of repair and not of improvement. Therefore, with the present state of rents under rent restriction it will be impossible for landlords to do the work out of rents. That, in itself, is a strong argument for removing any rent limit from the Bill.
My last point is that the Minister himself has allowed for what I would call a mechanical variation to meet changes in rating valuation under the new procedure. I suggest that he does so in order that the classes he wants to keep in the Bill will be constant; but he cannot be sure that they will remain constant. This, again, is an argument for no limit. In many areas at present houses are low


rated because of subsidence risks. In those areas when the houses are covered the rateable values will tend to rise. In other areas where the houses are not covered, there will be claims that the rateable value should come down.
Therefore, the Minister's standards of valuation—his classes of protection—are not permanent. I have put forward four arguments: that the Bill fails to achieve the Minister's intention as to the dwellings which should be covered; that it creates continual anomalies, especially in the case of flats; that it wrongly excludes landlords of a great deal of rent restricted property; and, finally, that by its own restriction it creates anomalies for the future.

Colonel Clarke: I support this Amendment on two main grounds. The first is that this Clause is even more retrogressive than most of the Bill. The Blanesborough Report issued in 1937, which is the basis of the 1939 Act, recommended a higher level of rating valuation than is recommended now. That Report was made 23 years ago. Since then the value of house property has increased probably threefold, and yet today we are recommending a lower level than was recommended then. That is retrogressive, and I shall be interested to see what arguments are advanced to say that it is not.
Anything that we could do to simplify this Bill would be useful. It is highly complicated. It will give enormous scope for argument and for the fees of lawyers and solicitors who will have to interpret it. Any simplification would be to the good. If we simply said "dwelling houses" without trying to narrow the definition to certain classes of dwelling houses, that would help considerably. I do not think that a great many other houses would be included. It would not widen the scope very much.
I deprecate the proviso that though we are agreeing to this class, the Minister by Order, with the usual disadvantages that appertain to Orders, may alter what we accept today. I will not detail all the objections to doing things by Order. I only suggest that the Minister, and particularly his Parliamentary Secretary, know them well enough by now from the experience they have had in getting Orders

through the House. There are a great many objections. A lot of time must be spent upon them. They cannot be amended. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of legislation.

Mr. Tom Brown: I think that there is some substance in the Amendment which was moved in a most able way by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne). I ask the Minister to reconsider this Clause. It is true that there are better types of houses assessed at a higher rateable value than those which we used to say were "built in the pit yard." In the past it was the custom to build houses as near to the pit bank as possible. In recent years a better vision of life has descended upon the mining villages and now they build houses further away from the pits, provided there are transport facilities. Naturally, the assessment of those houses is higher.
I ask the Minister to consider, between now and the Report stage, whether he cannot agree to a higher assessment for that type of dwelling. We all know that these houses in mining districts, particularly if they are villas or of the semi-detached type, are at a considerable distance from the pithead on the "dip" side and are, therefore, less liable to subsidence than those built round about the pit, because the further one goes from the pithead on the "dip" side, the deeper the workings go and there is thus not the same liability to subsidence. I therefore ask the Minister to give consideration to the Amendment, and see if he cannot agree to a much higher figure.

Mr. Higgs: The purpose of the two Amendments now before the Committee is to remove the limit of rateable value, firstly, from buildings which are purely and simply used as dwelling houses, and, secondly, from buildings which are either entirely or mainly used as dwelling houses, but are sub-divided into a number of flats. The Amendments seek to add quite a substantial class of buildings to the benefits provided by this Bill, and these are buildings which were not within the scope of the Bill as drafted.
One must take the practical view of looking, first of all, to see what it is in the way of liability that we are thrusting upon the National Coal Board if we adopt these Amendments. We are all agreed


that when this Bill finally comes to be operated we all want it to work, because we all hope at one time or another to add other classes of property to the benefits which it will provide. It is important to remember that this Bill provides a remedy which will not be used over the greater part of the country. The remedy of this Bill will not be attractive to the owner of a house or a block of flats in a part of the country where mining has never been contemplated in the past, because such an owner will also have, in addition to the rights which this Bill will give him, a very much greater right which he has under the common law to claim full damages, not merely in respect of the structure of his property, but also for damage to his furniture, for personal injury, inconvenience and removal. The rights which he has under the common law will therefore be far more attractive to him than anything this Bill provides.
Secondly, it is important to remember that at least in a great part of the areas which we now know as mining areas—and I know some of them quite well—the mines have already been worked out and subsidence has finished.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is now going very much wider than the Amendment which is before the Committee. The question seems to be one of a particular amount of rateable value on dwelling-houses affected by the Bill, and not the wider question which the hon. Gentleman is now raising.

Mr. Higgs: I was endeavouring to show that if we add to the benefits of the Bill dwelling-houses over £32 in rateable value, which is the effect of the Amendments, we are not adding so much as may be thought, because we are only dealing with dwellings in certain very limited areas in the country. I hope I have said enough on the subject for the Committee to appreciate that we are only looking at a very narrow class of dwellings in a limited area of the country.
5.15 p.m.
May I now turn to another aspect of the same question, which I hope is well within the scope of the Amendments? I have taken quite at random two or three local authorities in order to ascertain how many of their houses are below the rate-

able value figure that we are now discussing and how many are above it. The first one I look at is a borough which has 10,775 houses. There is some mining and a good deal of industry, and it is also, on its other side, a market town. Almost exactly 10,000 of these houses are under the £32 rateable value, and only about 700 of them are over that figure, so that these Amendments, in that particular town, relate to about 700 out of nearly 11,000 houses.
In the next case, which is that of a large industrial urban district, the whole of whose area is undermined, there are 13,072 houses, and only 32 are over a rateable value of £30. I could not get the figures for the £32 level. That means something like.3 per cent. In that case, all that we are asking the Government to do is to remove a limit which now excludes only.3 per cent. of the houses. In a country market town which I chose in order to show that the figures do not vary very much, no mining is expected at the moment, although we never know what the Ministry will do next. In this case, only 4.7 per cent. of the houses are over a rateable value of £30, so that I hope that, in considering our arguments on these Amendments, the Minister will bear in mind that what we are asking him to do will not put a very heavy burden on the National Coal Board.
It is worth while commenting in passing that those who in the past, rightly or wrongly, built these houses in mining areas usually had the sense to see that there were mine workings under them, so that not very many will be attracted to the benefits under this Bill. That is the burden which we are asking the Coal Board to assume. What is the benefit that will flow if the Amendments are adopted? As a practical man who may be concerned in the administration of this Bill when it becomes law, I shudder from the thought of some of the cases with which we shall have to deal, because they are on the border line one way or another.
I mentioned on Second Reading that a house can come in and go out of the Bill simply as a few rooms in it are let as separate dwellings and as it later becomes one dwelling again. The rent may be perhaps £40 or £50, but it does not matter, if the rateable value is


above the limit. If the house is subdivided for a few weeks and a second family moves in, and the walls then collapse, compensation is payable, but if the collapse takes place after the second family have left and the house has reverted to one dwelling, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
I was told during the Second Reading Debate that this is the time to mention these matters, and I wish to refer to a pair of semi-detached houses, which are identical, except that one has a garage. The house with the garage is rated at £33, and the one without at £31. The house without a garage is protected by the Bill, but the one with it is not. We shall have the spectacle of landlords, among whom I must include the most important of all, the local housing authorities, being compelled to impose upon their tenants restrictions as to what they shall or shall not do. We shall have the building societies and others who lend money upon mortgage, as well as the local authorities, who come in under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, placing irritating restrictions upon borrowers, unless by some perfectly innocent means they can take the house out of the scope of the Bill. Anyone who has experience of the operation of rent restriction well knows how one can multiply the examples of people who will be in and out of the Bill, like ducks in and out of water, for a long time.
I must turn for a moment to the second Amendment which deals with the subdivided building. There, I support what was said by my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the case of the house where, because one of the sections into which it is divided—either as one shop and two flats, or one rather expensive flat and two less expensive flats—is highly rated, it puts up the average for whole building so that when one divides the whole building by the number of flats one gets an average of £33 although four out of five flats in the building are under £22. Such anomalies irritate, annoy and aggravate people. In a Bill which seeks to deal with only one class of property, we are bound to have some sort of limit, some marginal cases, but these two Amendments seek to reduce the number of marginal cases and the irri-

tation which must follow without, we hope, imposing any very severe burden on the shoulders of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With regard to the last point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) about flats of different rateable value in the same building, I will look at it and consider it when I see it in HANSARD tomorrow. He argued earlier in his speech that we should do well to accept this Amendment, to change the whole basis of the Bill, and to include all dwellings, because, as he said, that might be a very small burden in practice as there are very few large dwellings in mining areas. He gave some figures, and I shall give some more in a moment. He said that those who built large houses in mining areas always took the precaution of keeping support, and that, therefore, if we brought in all dwellings we should be adding only a very slight addition to the burden of the National Coal Board.
When preparing the Bill, I considered that matter with my Parliamentary Secretary and with my other colleagues, and we consulted the National Coal Board about it. We came to the conclusion that as these houses nearly always have support, there was no hardship, and also that as the thing was unknown it was impossible to make a safe estimate and it might add a big burden. We thought that if we were dealing with mansions we should deal with them in a subsequent Bill. The same argument applies to houses, which come under the Rent Restriction Acts. Under those Acts protection is given to those who have houses in the provinces of a rateable value not exceeding £75. Those Acts were designed to protect houses which were in popular demand, that is broadly speaking, small houses. In many of the mining areas, a dwelling rated at £75 would be a mansion, and I think it would be covered by what I said before.
The purpose of this Bill is to include the small dwelling-houses. We accept the argument of the Royal Commission of 1927 on this point, that those who buy houses without knowing what is in the title deeds are usually working people who have to live near their work, and that the people who can afford larger houses probably know about the title deeds, are able to live further away, and are, therefore, able to look after themselves much better. It is with the small


dwelling-houses that the real hardship arises, and it is with those that we propose to deal in this Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) argued, I thought, that we were doing worse than the Royal Commission of 1927 because our figure was £32, and they said £40. As a matter of fact, the Royal Commission said £40 annual value, but from annual value there may be deductions up to 40 per cent. before one arrives at the rateable value. I am advised that, in fact, £40 annual value is equivalent to a rateable value of £30, and, therefore, we are doing better than the Royal Commission suggested.

Colonel Clarke: I also added that since 1927 the value of house property had gone up, I think I said, threefold, and I do not think I was far wrong.

Mr. Noel-Baker: What we have to look at is the class of property which is included up to a rateable value of £32 per annum. We think that includes small dwellings. There will be very few which will be outside that figure. We have had consultations with many people, with the associations of the local authorities and with the National Property Owners' Association. We have asked them to give us examples of small dwelling-houses in subsidence areas which could properly be called small, and which are rated at more than £32 per annum.

Mr. Redmayne: Does not the Minister accept my figure of 25 per cent. in one particular large suburban area, which represents exactly the type of house he is trying to cover?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am coming to that in a moment. I am now calling in evidence the fact that the associations of the local authorities and the National Property Owners' Association, who were asked to advise us about small dwelling-houses of more than £32 rateable value, had, up to day or two ago, not given us any examples at all. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne) has given us evidence about small dwelling-houses, and when I get HANSARD tomorrow morning I shall study what he has said. The flats he mentioned should, of course, only be included in the Bill if they rank as small dwellings, and if they are in areas which are liable to sub-

sidence. If they fulfil those conditions, then I will certainly consider the point.
I may say that the two hon. Members who spoke on this matter during Second Reading were the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). I had inquiries made about the Rushcliffe Parliamentary Division, and those who helped me could give me no examples of small dwelling-houses of over £32 rateable value. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman is now saying, but that was the result of my inquiries. With regard to Ilkeston, I found that there were 8,844 houses, of which 8,764 were rated at £32 or less. In other words, there were only 80 which were rated at over £32, and, therefore, ex hypothesi, I think they must be large houses.

Mr. Oliver: Would my right hon. Friend say whether that was the Borough or the Division of Ilkeston?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that it was the Parliamentary Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) has also given me the example of his constituency in which there are 14,000 houses, only 90 of them being rated at over £32 a year. In the light of those figures, I do not think it very likely that we are excluding small dwellings. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked me to consider this matter again. I will certainly do so, and if I obtain evidence which leads me to think that we ought to change the figure, I will make the proposal to the House.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest, and I have come to the conclusion that it is about one of the most stupid to which I have ever listened. It is quite clear that if we damage a man's property, he ought to be entitled to compensation. The Minister's argument is that if the property is rather large, the owner is not entitled to compensation, and that, anyhow, as there are not many of them it does not matter. But if there are not many of them it will not cost much, and therefore the risk to the National Coal Board would not be very much. I understand that the proposition is that if the house is over a certain size the owner will


receive no compensation. Is that the doctrine?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman's point was put in a much more reasonable and rational manner by one of his hon. Friends, and I answered it.

5.30 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman may have answered it, but he is going to have it again. Is he then thinking of bringing in a Bill to provide that if a motor car runs over a man and that man is earning over a £1,000 a year, he is to have no compensation? What is the difference? One person owns a house of less than a certain value and he is entitled to compensation. The other person who owns a house over that value is entitled to none. This is the grossest injustice. It is a means test again. If a man has means and the value of his house is more than £32 a year, he gets nothing; if it is less, he gets something. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman getting excited at my saying that this kind of thing is unjustifiable.
What is the use of talking about statistics? Is that any reason why people should be treated with injustice? If somebody does me damage then I am entitled to be compensated whether I am a millionaire or a man out of a job. I cannot understand this totally unjust attitude of mind. In effect, it is saying that if one is a Member of Parliament one is entitled to compensation, but if one is a Parliamentary Secretary one gets nothing. The Prime Minister, whose gross salary is over a quarter of a million pounds, is to get nothing because he is above the limit both at 10 Downing Street and at Chequers. [An HON. MEMBER: "He pays no rent."] When he loses his job he loses his house at the same time. On what grounds do the Government justify the differentiation between people who live in houses just over or just under £32? It is quite monstrous that this thing should be defended by the intolerable argument used by the Minister.

Miss Jennie Lee: Until the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) took part in the Debate, hon. Members opposite were winning a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House for the case put so reasonably by

the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne). But the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, East means that as a Committee we had better look at this a little more carefully.
We are not pretending that today is Judgment Day, that today, in this Committee, we are giving absolute justice and putting right all the grievances and injustices of past, present and future. I should say that there is general agreement in this Committee that in more favourable circumstances, both in terms of Parliamentary majorities and the financial situation of the country, we would have preferred to have the whole Turner Report. We should have preferred to cover houses of no matter what size, whether palaces, mansions, moderate mansions or cottages. We would then have been dealing with damage done to every kind of surface property—damaged farms, damaged lands, hospitals, schools, chapels and all the rest. But we cannot listen quietly to the strictures and criticisms that have been made so crudely by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. These at once rouse in our minds other considerations.
When I went to my constituency the other week, immediately following the Second Reading of this Bill, I was met by a miner of well over 60 years of age. He shook me by the hand and he said, "Well, it is too late to do me any good but, thank God for other people." He was an old miner living in the village of Norton Canes whose house had been damaged before the date covered in this Bill. I comforted him a bit by reminding him that he would be helped with regard to damage which had occurred since January, 1947.
We decided on Second Reading and when passing the Financial Resolution that the Coal Board at this time has not only to meet burdens placed upon it by this Bill. It has to meet other urgent claims. I wonder if the hon. Member for Croydon, East, when he put his case in the way he did, gave even a backward glance to the people to whom great wrongs were done in the past. I wonder whether he considered that the Coal Board has to meet claims of men who are paid as little as a £5 minimum at the pit surface.
I have to decide where the most urgent needs lie and where the gravest injustices,


past and present, have been done. I am not going to be responsible in this Committee for placing additional burdens on the Coal Board that would make it more difficult for them to meet the present wage claims that they are preparing to settle with the unions. I see your eye upon me, Major Milner, and I know I am going a little bit wide.
I want to make clear that I am not unsympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. I should be very glad indeed if the Minister could look at the points he made and see whether adjustments can be made in borderline cases. But, if members of the Committee speak in the way that the hon. Member for Croydon, East has spoken, it at once reminds me of harsher injustices in my own constituency. He reminds me of little chapels and modest Community centres and much else that mean a great deal to us.
We are not implementing the Turner Report. There are all kinds of problems that will be settled in the future. For the moment we do not pretend to do more than rough justice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very rough."] It is very rough in the villages where people have no clubs and have lost chapels which had been built for poor folks penny by penny and brick by brick. Our people who are the worst victims of damage by coal subsidence keep in mind those other claims on the Coal Board, particularly for wages that buy their daily bread. I hope hon. Members opposite will also not forget those things and will speak in the reasonable terms of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. If they press their claims too far, they will alienate the sympathy of this side of the Committee.

Mr. Bracken: I must say it is interesting to us who sit on this side of the House and to those who sit on the other side to hear from the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) that her judgment is swayed when she has any conversations with or is forced to hear speeches by people who use immoderate language. She hates apparently violent language and she, like me, despises people who talk about "vermin." [interruption.] I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted to get on with the business, because we are going to express our opinion on this Bill even though many mining Members are silent or absentees. The arguments of the hon.

Member for Rushcliffe struck me as so reasonable that I cannot understand why they are not accepted by the Minister. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) brought forward other weighty reasons for accepting the Amendment and, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has said it is an Amendment on which both sides of the House can agree.

Mr. T. Brown: I said there was some substance in it.

Mr. Bracken: I agree there is substance in it, but it may well be that there is something wrong with the formal language. I apologise for the language we are using. We took it very largely from a Bill which the Minister of Education brought before the House and there may well be something wrong with it. We are reasonable people on this side of the House and if the Minister will listen to what was said to him by the hon. Member for Ince—and I hope I did him no harm by supporting him—then we can find an alternative and acceptable form of words.
Perhaps I was a little sharp with the hon. Member for Cannock, but she rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and I am supposed to stand up for my hon. Friends. The hon. Lady, who made an appeal to us, would probably agree that if we could find a form of words which would better express our ideas, and if the Minister would accept them, then on the whole that would be an advantage, because we are faced with a very serious problem.
I am sorry that this Bill is being dealt with in such a strange way. We are now dealing with a very technical problem—something which affects the whole life of the mining community. This Amendment is a real effort on our part to try to deal with some of the grievances. No Opposition have ever worked harder on Amendments than we have worked on these. Believe it or not, we spent hours wading through the speeches of the Minister of Education and all the other speeches made in favour of the Bill introduced in 1939. What do we get as a result of our valiant endeavours? The


Minister simply says, "Well, I will consider it, and I will read HANSARD tomorrow." That is not very satisfactory.
In point of fact, I cannot convince the Minister because I do not think he has studied adequately the Report of the Turner Committee, but in order to give him an opportunity of understanding the position I will make way—if you call him, Major Milner—for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who was a member of the Committee and who can give the Minister the instruction which he obviously requires.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his introduction. In view of the Minister's statement that he would reconsider this matter, I should like first of all to remind him that it was a unanimous decision of the Turner Committee that there should be no line drawn in this question of compensation. On an earlier Amendment the Minister asked me whether I could give the Committee's reasons for making a certain recommendation and perhaps I may say here that it would, of course, be improper for me to disclose the internal arguments of that Committee. All I can do is to look at the recommendations as they appear on the face of the Report.
We ask the Minister—what would be the cost of giving compensation in respect of all dwelling houses? I know that no accurate estimate can be made, but then no accurate estimate can be made about this compensation at all. I believe it is clear that the extra cost involved in removing the £32 limit altogether and including all dwelling houses would be infinitesimally small. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne) quoted examples of the numbers of houses involved.

Mr. John McKay: On a point of order. Is not this discussion outside the scope of the Amendment? If we are to go into the whole question of allowing compensation on dwelling houses we can go very wide. Surely the discussion should be limited to the Amendment.

The Chairman: I am afraid that is the main point of the first Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I understand it, that is the first Amendment. I do not want to be offensive to hon. Members opposite, but it is difficult to avoid it when I am interrupted on a point of that kind. I was asking what would be the cost of acceding to this Amendment and giving compensation in respect of all dwelling houses. Specific instances have been given, I think taken completely at random, to show that in particular areas the number of dwelling houses excluded by the £32 limit is very small. Indeed, that is the right hon. Gentleman's own case. He has said that the Bill covers the vast majority of houses in the mining areas. It is also true, of course, that, in the case of dwelling houses of a more expensive kind, very often more money was spent in putting in special foundations and in work of that nature. I believe it would be found that the additional cost would be quite trivial.
May I draw the Minister's attention to this aspect? There is a very considerable factor on the other side. If we are to draw a line, then we have to introduce all the administrative refinements which are put into this Bill in order to make that line effective. Quite clearly there would be a number of cases which are, to say the least, doubtful and where it may be that the nature of the building has been altered—a garage has been built or something else has occurred which raises doubts, quite genuine doubts; and disputes between the parties involved must necessarily lead to litigation, possibly to ex gratia payments and so on.
Would it not possibly be cheaper in the long run to have no limit? We might be adding a few thousand pounds. I do not think it would be more than £7,000 or £10,000 for the country in the year and that money would return not only in the tangible form of the avoidance of administrative expenses, of litigation expenses, but also in the intangible form of added goodwill, which is a very important factor in this connection.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable approach to this subject and I do not think he has closed his mind upon it. I ask him to bear in mind the small amount of the expense which he is seeking to save—and I think economy is the only reason he has given for his insistence on the inclusion of the words in


the Bill. If that is so, may it not be that the real economy will be achieved by giving way and by accepting an Amendment on the lines of the first Amendment.

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will soon come to a decision.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I want to say only a few words in reply to my right hon. Friend, in connection with the number of dwelling houses affected in Ilkeston. If his figure is correct, then I must ask him seriously to consider the arguments which have been advanced for the removal of this limit of £32 rateable value. I base my argument, for the moment, on the figures which the Minister himself gave. He said that in the Ilkeston division there are only a few houses of a rateable value in excess of £32. If that be the case, why should we worry about drawing this line of £32?,
It is reasonable to assume that if the position in a constituency like mine is that which he outlined—and mine is not wholly a mining area, but is mainly a mining area—then the position in other mining areas must be comparable. The major portion of the property will come within the £32 rateable value and there will be a very small proportion in excess of that figure. If that be the case, I would ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider whether he could not remove this limit—whether he could not certainly increase it and, if possible, abolish it altogether.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I must say at once that I am more or less an interested party in this discussion and, therefore, ought perhaps not to speak at all. I inhabit a house, and have inhabited it for a quarter of a century, which all the time has been subject to subsidence. It is not imaginary. I had an arrangement with the owners of the house, who are also the colliery owners, that I should have the house at a very low rent and, therefore, I received no compensation from them at any time. At the same time, there are many houses similar to that in which I live—although not many in the part of the country where I live—which are just as liable to subsidence as are houses in colliery villages. Indeed, they suffer more sometimes. It does

seem to me that the Minister would be acting only justly if he accepted this Amendment. I do not honestly believe that it would cost very much—certainly not in the part of Durham where I live; and it would be only fair to those who have to pay now for their own losses by subsidence. I make an appeal to the Minister, I trust that he will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Minister has intimated that his mind is not closed on this subject, I should like to detain the Committee for just two or three moments to argue to him that not a single ground either practical or logical, which has been put forward for this attempt to distinguish between one category of dwelling houses and another, is sound.
I take it that our reason for dealing in this Bill with dwelling houses as such, as opposed to other kinds of property, is especially the urgent need, at this time above all others, to preserve habitations—to preserve units of accommodation. In that case I suggest that we are wrong to leave outside its scope any unit of accommodation. Just because a house in a mining area is a large house—is, for example, assessed at £75 on the valuation role—it is not therefore unimportant for accommodation, because many of these larger houses are, as is well known, being sub-divided. Our object is to ensure that no property goes out of occupation, if that can possibly be avoided, because of subsidence, and so we ought not to exclude any dwelling house of any size.
In any case, the proportion of dwelling houses above the £32 limit which are only just above the £32 limit is exceedingly large. I am informed that in the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne), where 75 per cent. of the houses were under £32 assessment, there were 92 per cent. which were under £40. So that in view of the main object of this Bill, which is the preservation of housing accommodation, I suggest that we are not justified in excluding any type of dwelling house from the Bill.
Then there was given the practical argument, first that it was impossible to estimate what expense would be involved—I think that was the argument used by the Minister—and secondly that the


expense would be excessive. Now, if it is possible to estimate the cost of dealing with houses under £32 assessment, it is difficult to see why an estimate cannot be made for the remaining dwelling-houses. Surely an estimate near enough to justify Parliament in taking a decision one way or the other could be made. My hon. Friends have shown, I think to the general satisfaction, that the additional cost of bringing in all dwelling-houses would be relatively negligible.
What, then, is the logical argument for attempting to restrict the Bill to small dwelling-houses? I am not going to argue that we are withholding a right from the owners of large houses. We are by this Bill creating a new right—at any rate, making a right general which at present exists only subject to limitations and in particular areas. But when we are altering the law, when we are tidying up the law, surely it is wrong that we should introduce a new distinction. Surely we should grant a general right for all owners of dwelling-houses; and in creating this new right, not indulge in property distinctions.
I think the only logical argument, so far as I could gather, which the Minister used, was that found in the Report of the 1927 Commission—that the maxim caveat emptor should not be applied too rigorously to owners of small property in mining areas; that, to quote the words of the Report,
Such tenants and owners of small houses have often bought their houses without knowing if they had a right to compensation or not.
If that is the ground on which the Minister is to take his stand—that, on the whole, it is the owner of small houses who have not properly looked after themselves in the past—then he has been entirely illogical in the drafting of this Bill, because he has included houses belonging to the local authorities. We are not going to be told, surely, that local authorities do not consult lawyers before they put up their houses? He has not excluded houses in the possession of land owners or built by speculative builders. But surely a man building 20 or 40 houses as a speculation looks into the legal position of the land on which he is going to build them. Finally, this Bill covers new houses built after it comes

into force. Therefore, there is no doubt whatever that the argument of the Commission of 1927, for whatever it was worth, has been entirely rejected by the Minister, and he ought not to attempt now to take cover behind it. In his reconsideration of this matter he should say to himself, "We are unfortunately not able to clear up the whole law in regard to subsidence; but we are dealing with dwelling-houses. So let us, since Parliament is not likely to return to this subject again for, at any rate, a year or two, make a decent job of that to which we have confined ourselves, and bring dwelling-houses as a whole within the scope of the Bill."

Miss Irene Ward: I am bound to say that I always find the right hon. Gentleman most helpful in considering any practical proposals put forward from any side of the Committee, and I should like to say how glad I am that, at any rate, he has said that he will look at what has been said in the Committee today—with a view, I hope, to making the alteration which is suggested in these Amendments. I want only to put one question to him. He is aware—because he so stated—that the Association of Municipal Corporations does support the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee. He put forward as an argument for not accepting the Amendment, as I understood it, that he had asked the Association of Municipal Corporations to provide evidence where cases of hardship may be put forward because of the limitation of the Bill. If he has not had any evidence forthcoming from the local authorities, does that not, in fact, add emphasis to the views that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)? It is a limited concession for which we are asking.
I shall not detain the Committee any further with this, but I come from an area which is closely associated with the mining industry, and I am delighted that this Bill has been brought forward, and I do hope that it will be improved by the acceptance of these Amendments, after the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of further consideration of the points that have been put forward.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister, as one of his main defences, has said he justified himself in the light of the Re-


port of the 1927 Commission, because of the differences between annual value and rateable value. As I understand it, he went on to say he was being more generous than the 1927 Commission because up to 40 per cent. could be deducted from the annual value before the rateable value was taken. Well, I have just been looking up the Act, and if he will look at it again the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is only houses of up to £10 annual value that can get the 40 per cent. deduction; and I think he will also find, if he now looks at the number of houses which so qualify, that his statement sounds very much better than in fact it really is.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not say a deduction of 40 per cent. I said that I was advised that £40 annual value was equivalent to £30 rateable value.

6.0 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was coming to that. That is quite true. Between £20 and £40 the deduction is 25 per cent., which in fact makes the two figures the same. But I think it would be untrue to claim, as I understood the Minister to claim, that he was being more generous than the Royal Commission. There might be one or two cases, but all he could claim over-all is that he is not being more ungenerous than was the Royal Commission.
I do ask him to think of this further factor, that the gross annual assessments have gone up very much since 1927, and that moreover the value of the £ has gone down very considerably. For him to claim any basis between £40 in 1927 and the assessments today would, in my view, be a travesty of fact. He must particularly remember, as the Royal Commission pointed out, that these houses are, for the most part, owned by people who cannot live elsewhere; they have got no choice where they shall live.
Therefore, in limiting, as he is doing at the moment, the sum to £32, in view of the fall in the purchasing power of the £, the rise in assessments and the necessity for these people to live there, he is being far less generous than the Royal Commission of 1927, quite apart from the other arguments of my hon. Friends, which I heartily endorse, that he should have no qualification whatso-

ever. If he insists on having a qualification, for any qualification to be fair in the light of what has been said in previous years, the figure must be very much higher than £32, and I would say it should be as a minimum double that figure if he is to achieve the same result as was anticipated in 1927. I therefore hope that, whatever final decision he may come to, at least he will not maintain his present figure of £32.

Sir P. Spens: I entirely support the view that another limit will be a cause of great trouble in administration and, I suspect, the cause of a good deal of litigation. Nevertheless, the figure of £32 seems to me to be far too low. May I, as a Scot representing an English division, suggest that the minimum figure ought to be the same as it is for Scotland? It is a very curious thing that, although the Debate has gone on for a long time, so far nobody has mentioned that subsection (4) imposes a £52 limit in Scotland, whereas it is only £32 for England.

Mr. T. Brown: Make it £32 for Scotland.

Sir P. Spens: I do not for a moment suggest it is too much for Scotland. Indeed, later on we may have an opportunity of even suggesting that that figure should go up. I do suggest that in the same Clause to have a figure of £32 for England and £52 for Scotland is absolutely unfair to all the good people living South of the Tweed.

Mr. Bracken: In order to speed up the business of the Committee—which is making no particularly swift progress in view of the handling of these issues by the Government—and in view of the undertaking given by the Minister that all these matters will be reconsidered, I should not like to put you, Major Milner, to the trouble of having to deal with this Amendment, and I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it. I look forward with great interest to the conversations which will occur between this side of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Redmayne: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert "and."
This is a drafting and paving Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I fully understand that this Amendment was intended to be drafting, but I would submit that it may not be in effect purely drafting, and I should be grateful if the Government's legal advisers—unless I am quite quite wrong—would have another look at it. Is not the effect of putting in "and" here that the word "to" will have to go in at the end of line 3 on page 2? Otherwise, will not paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) look as if they are cumulative and must all be added? I hope I am making my point clear. I do not want to take up too much time on it because it is a very tiny point. I should like an assurance that the drafting will be looked at again. It does not seem to me certain that what is now proposed has the effect intended.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot just nod his head. We really do want a rather better explanation. It is no use the Lord Advocate talking about "drafting" and "paving." He will almost be talking about slate soon, which is the principal product of the Coal Board. I think he ought to give us a better explanation. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must earn his vast fee.

Mr. Pickthorn: Are we not to have an answer?

Mr. Bracken: Cannot we have any explanation?

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman has just told the Committee that he is anxious to make progress with the Bill. This is purely a paving Amendment to make way for an Amendment which comes later. It is purely grammatical in its effect. I do not think that the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) need worry about the actual drafting of this Amendment, because we are quite satisfied that these are alternative and not cumulative conditions. I did indicate by nodding my head that we would look at the point, although I personally am satisfied. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance. To

go into any further explanation of this Amendment would merely anticipate what I have got to say in respect of a further Amendment, for which this is a paving Amendment. With that explanation I am sure the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman have been assuaged.

Sir H. Williams: This is the most extraordinary explanation of an Amendment I have ever heard. The Lord Advocate says that the explanation of this Amendment is to come on another Amendment later on. I always thought that in those circumstances, explanations should be given on the first Amendment and not later on. When we have the explanation later on we may decide not to accept it, in which case on Report we would have to insert something, or knock something out; I do not know yet what this Amendment does, and nor does anyone else. This is quite absurd. Surely the Lord Advocate could tell us in a few sentences what the Amendment means. If he is doing something to improve his grammar he ought to tell us the significance of the later Amendment, because apparently on this alteration hangs the substance of the later Amendment. I really think that Ministers have got awfully slipshod and that they want shaking up a bit.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Could the Lord Advocate tell the Committee the subsequent Amendment with which this is connected?

The Lord Advocate: Certainly. It is connected with the Amendment later in page 2, line 35, to leave out subsection (4), and to insert a new subsection. We are dealing with the general Scottish position on that Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: But that does not explain it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How on earth can this Amendment have anything to do with an Amendment to insert a new subsection (4) to the Bill?

The Lord Advocate: It is grammatical.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It may be grammatical, but if it means what the Lord Advocate says, then the word "and" is for the first time in the English language being used as something to divide two subsections and not to unite them. If that be so, I still cannot see


what on earth this Amendment has got to do with a subsection dealing with Scotland. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us.

The Lord Advocate: I have given the explanation.

Mr. Pickthorn: This really will not do.

Mr. Bracken: On a point of Order. It may not be a very sharply defined point of Order, Major Milner, but I want to ask for your protection in this matter. The Minister has obviously been given a wrong brief. He has moved an Amendment which he obviously does not understand, and has related it to a part of the Bill with which it has no connection whatsoever. It is an abuse of conditions in this Committee that a Minister should do this.
We are most anxious to speed up business, but when Ministers, ill-briefed and not too courteous either, refer to passages of the Bill which, so far as we are concerned at the moment, are non-existent, we should surely be allowed an opportunity of asking for further and better particulars, if not from the Lord Advocate—because he has got a great deal to do—at any rate from the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been sitting here silent during the afternoon, who probably has read this particular Bill, and who might be able to enlighten us. We are being asked to pass an Amendment about which we know nothing and about which the Government will tell us nothing. Surely it is foolish to turn ourselves into a Reichstag and just rubber-stamp Government legislation.

The Chairman: The Lord Advocate has explained the reason, whether it be accepted or not, for the insertion of the word "and." I hope that the Committee will come to a conclusion on it.

Sir H. Williams: So far as anyone desires to speak, it is the duty of the Chair to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. That is quite well understood. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to understand it, and I am saying this for their information.
We have been told by the Lord Advocate that the consequential part of the Amendment is page 2, line 35. That involves, first of all, leaving out subsection (4). On the Amendment we are now

discussing, the operative part of it after this particular word "and" is to leave out:
In the application of this Section to Scotland, for the words 'thirty-two pounds,' wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'fifty-two pounds.'
After this has been done, it is proposed to insert the new subsection (4) which occupies about 25 lines on page 57 of the Order Paper. I think that is a monstrous way of doing business, and I do not think that the Committee ought to accept the Government's Amendment. Now that the Lord Advocate has had time to read the words on the Order Paper and has grasped what they mean, perhaps he will explain them.

The Lord Advocate: There is a great deal of heavy weather being made about this particular Amendment. As I explained to the Committee—and I thought that they would accept it—it was purely a grammatical Amendment at this stage in anticipation of a subsequent Amendment in page 2, line 35. The purpose of this Amendment is to put "and" after the words "thirty-two pounds," on line 15 There is "and" after "thirty-two pounds" on line 3 of page 2. Part of the Amendment to which I have referred in page 2, line 35, includes "and" after the word "dwelling" in line 8 and therefore we have put in a series of "ands" in order to join up these four categories.
I trust that hon. Members will appreciate that this is merely a drafting Amendment, and if there are any objections to the grammatical aspects of it we are prepared to have a look at it. I understand the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) suggests that these categories are alternative categories to which the Bill may apply, and we will look at it from that point of view. I am personally satisfied that it is all right, but we are trying to be accommodating in this matter and we will give that assurance. I trust that with that assurance we can get on, and I propose to explain all that is contained in line 35 on the Order Paper, when we come to that particular Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I thought that the Lord Advocate could have got over the whole thing in half a minute. Now in the explanation which has been dragged out, he


has produced the wrong explanation. It is quite plain from what he now says that the answer to the objection which I see in this word is not corrected by what is to happen in line 35. It is quite clear that that is irrelevant to the point which I thought I had made clear to him. I must now make it clear.
Suppose that the Bill said: "This Act applies to Freeman, Hardy and Willis." That would be taken by everyone to mean that it applied to an entity made by the accumulation of those names. If what the Bill meant to say was "This Act applies to Freeman and to Hardy and to Willis" then it would be necessary for the Lord Advocate to clear his mind a little and not say in consecutive sentences that the word is intended to join up and in the very next setence that it is intended to mark the alternative.
If what is meant is that this Act is to apply to Freeman and to Hardy and to Willis, as I have suspected from the first, then the Amendment here is not justified by any Amendment which the House may make to line 35, and I submit in that case that for this Amendment to have the effect intended by the Government it will be necessary also to add the word "to" after "and" and in line 3 on page 2 to add the word "to" after "and." Unless the Government make these conditions, I suggest that the drafting is not having the effect that they intend, and that the reference to line 35 is wholly irrelevant to this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert:
(c) any hereditament which was constructed or has been structurally adapted for use in part as a private dwelling and part of which is so used and which hereditament has a rateable value not exceeding seventy-five pounds.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with a group of properties which we have not so far touched. We have been dealing with those properties either solely used as dwelling-houses or at least wholly or mainly which, I suppose, means 51 per cent. used as a dwelling-house. We now turn to the class of building of which, although some part is used as a dwelling, is not a 51 per cent. dwelling. In other words, we have been dealing

with business premises of a sort which have a dwelling included in the four walls, whereas we are now dealing with a dwelling which may have a business within the four walls.
Having regard to what the Minister said on the last Amendment but one, it may be that we can cut this discussion rather shorter than otherwise would be the case. At first, I think we should know one or two points which follow from the fact that we have far more businesses within the four walls than we had before. It is, after all, the carrying on of a business which pushes up the rateable value, and if we have a building rated at £32 or less and a small part of it is used for business purposes and then we change that building into the category which we are now discussing, by using a bigger part for the purpose of business, we increase the rateable value and put the whole building out of the Act.
Therefore, one of the reasons behind this Amendment is that if £32 is a fair limit for a building which is nearly all dwelling-house, the same size building and, if we can look at it in this way, the same type of owner will find that he has a larger rateable value solely by reason of the fact that he uses more of the building for business. Therefore, whatever may be the position in regard to the earlier Amendments that referred to rateable limitations, we ask the Minister to see whether in this case he cannot make a concession. He is only dealing with less than half a building in this Clause which has a substantial amount of business premises included and is therefore rated highly, the repairs to which the National Coal Board may be called upon to do.
Obviously, this class of case includes a great deal of non-residential uses and we have to have some rateable value limit, otherwise we might bring in a vast factory with a caretaker's flat on the roof. It is difficult to find a rateable value limit for a whole building which will correspond to a figure of £32 or £40. We are advised, however, that if we take the whole building at a figure of £75 the repairs that will be necessary on that part which is a dwelling will probably be as near as we can get to £32 worth. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on this Amendment, which seeks to do justice to those who have more than half their premises used for business purposes.
There is one further point I should like to make clear. We have anticipated the difficulties which may arise by people trying to defeat the purposes of the Bill by seeking to turn a building into a private dwelling house. It is for that reason we have provided that not only must part of the building be used for dwelling purposes, but must also be constructed for such use. Our purpose is to protect the Coal Board, for whom we have a little affection sometimes, against those who try to take advantage of this Amendment. We hope the Minister will note that as evidence of a genuine effort on our part not to bring a vast new class of property into the Bill, but merely to deal with an anomaly. We hope by this Amendment to make the Bill a little more generous and also a little more workable.

Mr. Raikes: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has been duly impressed by the admirable way in which this Amendment has been moved. The greatest problem the Parliamentary Secretary will have with this Bill is the number of anomalies which will arise, sing bitterness and discontent between persons in the same category. The object of this Amendment is to remove one of those anomalies. The object is to enable a man who has had his house increased in rateable value, because if is used in part as a business premises, to get some sort of compensation, or the same compensation he would get had the house been used solely for dwelling purposes.
It cannot be argued that to accept this Amendment would put a heavy cost upon the Coal Board or the Exchequer, because these cases are comparatively few. We have done our utmost to see that this Amendment cannot be used by people trying to escape from their commitments. We have not had many concessions tonight, and I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he is prepared to accept this small and important improvement.

Mr. Robens: I am very willing to speak, but I am unwilling to concede the point that has been made so pleasantly by the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes). I follow the argument quite clearly, but one important point has been overlooked, which is that this Amendment opens the way to getting a higher rateable

value for a dwelling-house. Let us assume that a professional man has a dwelling-house which is rated at £75. That puts him out of the Bill, but if he turns a room into a surgery the house becomes partly a dwelling-house, which means it will be brought within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Bracken: Why not?

Mr. Robens: I do not want to repeat the previous argument. We have been at pains to make it perfectly plain that we are trying to bring some measure of social justice to certain owners of dwelling-houses, and by taking this figure of £32 it gives us the type of house we want to cover. If we had wanted to cover larger houses the rateable value would have been more. I understand that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to look at this matter of the rateable value on a previous Amendment, and no doubt the same applies in this case, but the fact remains that we could not on this basis make this an obligation within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Raikes: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us an example of the way in which a doctor might wangle his house into the Bill by having one or two rooms used for business purposes and living in the remainder. But surely that sort of case is covered by the Amendment, which refers to
any hereditament which was constructed or has been structurally adapted for use in part as a private dwelling.
It cannot be argued, therefore, that a doctor or anyone else could take action deliberately to bring himself within the scope of this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I suggest that instead of directing our efforts to doing social justice to some and social injustice to the remainder, it would be better to do social justice to all.

Mr. Robens: This Bill is giving something away, not taking anything from anybody. All we have said in this Measure is that we propose to give social justice to those people who are hard hit by subsidence. We never said that we would cover mansions or large houses.

Colonel Clarke: To give one man something and not to give another the same is, in itself, creating a certain in-


justice. I do not want to pursue that, nor do I want to detain the Committee very long. Unless all dwelling-houses are included, temptation will be put in the way of people, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. What we suggest would remove all that, and I hope the Minister will agree to consider this question. It is the only way of doing it.

Mr. Bracken: Let me first of all congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on breaking his long silence. He has been a decorative addition to the Front Bench, but he might have helped his superior in the discharge of his duties. However, he has given us a promise to look into this, and we are keeping a very careful record of that. To save you, Mr. Bowles, the trouble of reading out the Amendment on the Paper, in view of the Minister's assurance perhaps we should withdraw it.

Sir H. Williams: Before the Amendment is withdrawn there is one observation I should like to make. The part of the country where this problem exists is the Black Country, with which I am most familiar. It is true that in certain parts coal pits are no longer worked, but there are a great many streets in small towns where there is the familiar thing known as a corner shop. Such a shop is generally inhabited by a miner and his wife, the latter being in charge of the shop during the day. The rateable value of such a place would be much above £32 a year, the line which this Bill draws between justice and injustice. The Amendment is drafted to cover the case of the corner shop. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) who pointed out that a doctor's surgery would not represent the structural alterations which would be necessary to qualify under the terms of this Clause. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not repeat this nonsense about social justice. To suggest that social justice operates at £32 but stops at £32 5s. is intellectual nonsense.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert:
has been laid before Parliament and.

This is merely a drafting Amendment. Without this Amendment the draft Order could not be laid in the ordinary way, but would have to be presented as a Command Paper. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept this Amendment as drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
An order under this subsection shall not have the effect of excluding from the dwelling-houses to which this Act applies any dwelling-house which immediately before the date of the order was included therein.
If you look at the Interpretation Clause of this Bill, Mr. Bowles, you will see that the rateable value with which we are dealing in this subsection is defined as
the value shown in the valuation lists for the time being in force.
It, therefore, follows that a house may come at one time within the provisions of this Bill and qualify for compensation, but at another time it may fall outside the provisions of the Bill. What applies to individual houses also applies to great numbers and classes of houses.
The Committee will be aware that under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, all valuations in the country are at present being revised, and in 1953 or possibly some later year we shall have a new list. No human being can at the present time predict how the values in that list will be related to present valuations. They may generally be higher or lower or they may be higher for certain types and lower for others. It is to meet the probability of a general alteration in rateable values that presumably the proviso was inserted in this subsection. Thus, if the Minister, upon examining the new valuation lists, finds there has been a general increase in the valuations, he might decide to make an increase in whatever figure is in the Bill—we hope eventually there will be no figure but must assume for the moment that there will be—proportionate to the general increase disclosed by the valuation lists.
On the other hand, should the valuations in the new lists prove to be on the whole lower, he takes power in this proviso to reduce the figure. I do not seek to impose any maximum upon the extent to which he can raise the figure, because


it has been the contention of my hon. Friends throughout this Debate that there should be no upper limit; but we believe that the statute should state upon its face, what is the reason for lowering the figure, as it empowers to the Minister to do, and should make it quite clear that any such lowering as he thinks necessary will not have the effect of excluding a house which at this moment, when we are passing this Bill, falls within the terms for compensation.
If I may attach to that argument—which I hope in itself the Minister will be able to accept whether he is wedded to this form of words or not—another point, it is highly undesirable that any house in any circumstances should be transferred from the compensation category to the non-compensation category by new valuation lists coming into force. Think of the effect. Imagine a street of houses and subsidence damage occurring. On the day before the new valuation comes into operation, No. 1, which is a house valued at £31 on the old valuation, gets compensation. Next day the new valuation lists come into force and subsidence occurs to No. 3; but the people in it get no compensation, although it is an identical house with No. 1.

Mr. Bracken: That is social justice.

Mr. Powell: I would put this point to the Minister for consideration, because in order to be met it will require Amendments in other parts of the Bill as well as the Clause with which we are dealing at the moment. I suggest to the Government not only that they should limit by statute the extent to which the Minister can in any circumstances lower this figure, but they should introduce such Amendments as are necessary to insure that no house, which once falls within the scope of this Bill and qualifies for compensation in the event of subsidence damage, should ever, by reason of a change in rateable values, be excluded.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think it needs very many words to support the argument which has been so clearly put in favour of the Amendment. I hope that the Minister means to accept it. Perhaps I may add two or three sentences, if the Minister could attend to them. It is no use talking on these Amendments unless one is talking to the Minister. What we must all remember is, as the poet said—

although I do not remember it exactly—that it is God only who can enjoy the vision of justice.
We must not assume the obligation and the practicability of some sort of absolute, leaving neglected a relative good that is within our grasp. The relative and contingent good that is within our grasp is that we should so legislate as not to create uncertainty and so that the effects of Bills should be patent on the face of them and permanent. It cannot surely be desirable, and I think it difficult to believe that Ministers really think it desirable, that doing justice should cease at a rateable value of £32. I quite follow the argument that if there is not enough money to do justice to everyone then, from the point of view of human hardship and happiness, they must take that line, but I cannot believe that they take the line because they want to take it.
It is still more difficult to believe that Ministers want the thing to fluctuate in time as well as by holding down the right to justice below a maximum rateable value. I hope that it will not be said that the administrative difficulty is so great that this is impossible. I hope that upon the face of it, the thing is seen to be just and that the Treasury Bench may not think that there is anything humiliating in accepting this suggestion.

Mr. Robens: I absolutely accept the argument that there must be a certain amount of illogicality about this matter in view of the disparity in rating values throughout the country. These will probably come more into line with one another as the new valuations take place.

Mr. Bracken: Which means that they will go up.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman should know as much about this matter as anybody else. When the revaluation takes place the values should be much more on a line one with another. I agree right away that there is this illogical position because of the assessments of one area against another being very different. A large house in one area will come within the Bill, while a smaller house in another area will be without the Bill.
To meet that position we undertake to consult the local authority associations on this matter. Under Clause 2 the Minister has power to make an Order


changing these amounts. I undertake that the Minister will consult the associations on this matter when ratable values are being made, before he makes his Order.

Mr. Bracken: The general undertaking just given by the Parliamentary Secretary may or may not commend itself to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. J. Enoch Powell), who made such an admirable speech, but as moderation is always my principle, I recommend it to my hon. Friend. As far as I understand the undertaking it is that the Minister will consult with the local authorities. That is good. It is one of the things which we had in mind when we put down the Amendment, because the local authorities have been grossly ignored in this wretched Bill.
Having brought the Government along a little way perhaps we should be able to get on with our business if my hon. Friend would now be prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. At the same time, it strikes me as being a most remarkable development in this House of Commons, of which I have been a Member for more than 20 years, that the mining Members are now behaving like Trappist monks. They will not speak up for their own people.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: One thing is not clear about the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Bill becomes law in its present form house No. 1 in such-and-such a street will come within its provisions, and also No. 3 in another street. If, as a result of the revaluation, which is just about to start, I think, it happens that No. 1 is raised in value far more than No. 3, we shall have the effect that a house which is now entitled to benefit by the Bill will lose the benefit. Consultation with the local authorities does not therefore seem to be the solution in the slightest degree. We ought to say that when revaluation takes place any house which exists at that time ought not to be deprived of the benefits of the Bill and that these provisions should apply only if there is a change in the £32 valuation and the house in question was constructed after the change. Other-

wise, we shall do manifest injustice to a large number of people.
Many people will think that they benefit under the Bill. A busy gentleman known as the district valuer comes round and puts up those people's valuations. Many of those people will not realise that their valuation may affect their position under this Bill. All that they will realise is that when the rateable values in their town become much higher the town council, if it is sensible, will reduce the rate in the £. The people will think solely in terms of rates and not in terms of rateable value. Their problem will not be presented to them until they suffer damage as a result of mining operations. They will find that as a result of their rateable value, which is, after all, a rather arbitrary thing, they are taken outside the Bill.
Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary must go much further in his inquiry than to consult with the local authorities, who are not the interested person at all. The interested persons are those who own the houses which may be damaged by mining operations. Primary consultation will be with the authorities, in their capacity as administrators of local rates, A large number of persons may be entirely deprived of benefit under the Bill, and then the local authorities will be deprived of rates because the present Government, in its wisdom or otherwise, has taken away valuation powers from the localities and has vested them in the State.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am not quite certain that he has taken my hon. Friend's point. I appreciate that it might be possible to deal with the point by an Order made under the subsection, but I think it will be necessary to look at the wording of the subsection which only gives power to make an Order varying the amount. It is clear that to do what the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, there will have to be a great deal of incidental and supplementary matter put into the Order, which would require a further substantial amendment of the subsection. I will not labour that point now, but the Government should look into that matter between now and the Report stage.
It only goes to show the very great deal of difficulty, trouble and administrative expense to which the Government


will be put to avoid the payment of a very small sum. I do not want to harp on that, but it is important. The Government must bear that point in mind in their general policy in regard to the Bill.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I think the Parliamentary Secretary has missed the whole point of the Amendment. He spent some time answering on the position where there are differences in valuation which might mean that a big house in one locality is included and another cut out and a small house in another locality is included and another one cut out. That is not the point of the Amendment; it is that where a house has once been accepted as one subject to the terms of the Bill it should not be cut out by the subsequent Order. That is the one point which the hon. Gentleman did not answer. Perhaps he will do that now.

Mr. Robens: I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) had really studied this and understood it thoroughly. The Amendment does not help in the direction about which he is talking. He wants every house which comes within the scope of the Bill as it now is to remain for all time within its scope. That is right, is it not?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is correct.

Mr. Robens: But if a local authority raises the rateable value of any of the houses they come out automatically and the Amendment does not bring them in. That is the point which I felt I thoroughly understood. I am certain that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) knew that thoroughly. I am sure that he understands the undertaking which I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend that when we were dealing with this Order for the valuations we would consult the local authorities—and consulting with local authorities really means negotiations—and we would use all that they could give us on the matter and endeavour to carry out the spirit and will of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman was certainly joking when he talked about our not having consulted local authorities. The associations would tell him that we have

consulted them at every stage. I am certain that after the consultation with the local authorities when the revaluations take place hon. Gentlemen opposite will be satisfied that we have carried out the will of Parliament and the spirit of the Act.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry, and I do not wish to labour the point, but I still do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has quite got the terms of the Amendment. It is designed to see that any Order made under subsection (2) cannot, because it lowers the limit, take a house which is, at the passing of the Bill, covered by the Bill out of the provisions of the Bill. That is a very simple thing which does not need consultations with anybody. I admit that the consultations which he has adumbrated will be a good and useful thing. Why does he object to this provision?
A house may be damaged under the terms of the Bill as passed and then the Minister may make an Order under subsection (2) saying, "Instead of £32 we will have £30," and the house then falls outside the scope of the Bill. While the house suffered damage at the time of the passing of the Act, the Minister, if he cares to vary the valuation, can exclude it. We ask that any house which is covered by the provisions of the Bill at a time that it is passed shall not be taken out because the Minister may subsequently lower the limit. That is a simple request and one which so far, with respect, the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered.

Mr. Powell: This short Debate has at any rate shown that there are a number of thorny difficulties which arise from the tying of a right to compensation to a certain valuation figure. In particular, three separate and distinct points have been disclosed. The first is that to which the Amendment specifically draws attention. It seeks to ensure that the Minister shall not use the power which the proviso gives to him of reducing the ceiling in such a way as to exclude houses which at present fall within the scope of the Bill. That is in order that when considering the new valuation lists he will not have power to make a reduction which may exclude a whole category of houses
The second point, which I raised, was that it is really an intolerable situation that a house should qualify on one day and not on the next day, because a new valuation list has come into force in the interim. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that he cannot deal with that by amending the Clause because it is not a matter with which he can deal by Order. But it is a matter which the Government and Parliament ought to look at before the last is seen of this Bill.
The third point, which was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, is that all sorts of anomalies will be created by the shifts in valuation as between one part of the country and another which will occur when the new lists come into force.
However, these three points have now been put on the record and I take it that, quite apart from the Amendment, the Government will consider them carefully and sympathetically. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
or of any person other than the person to whom the compensation is payable.
This Amendment is rather similar in effect to the first of the new Clauses [Alteration in use of dwelling-house] in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth, and Christchurch and others, including myself. I do not wish to miss the opportunity of raising the point covered by the Amendment, but if the Government can give me an assurance that they will be prepared to deal with this point fully when we come to the new Clause, I would wish either to withdraw or not to press my Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): That would be very unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment and the Minister may say what he wishes. If his assurance is not satisfactory, the hon. Gentleman can then develop his argument.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Bowles. If the Government can give me a short reply perhaps we can leave the full Debate on it till we reach the new Clause. The point raised by the Amendment is that under subsection (3) a house is prevented

from being taken out of the benefit of the Bill merely by reason of the fact that a requisitioning authority uses the house in such a way as to make it ineligible for compensation. I do not want that to prejudice the position of the owner of a house who is kept out of occupation by a tenant or some other person who is legitimately there, and who may use the house in such a way as to destroy the owner's right to compensation.
For example, a tenant of a dwelling-house may use it as a shop or erect a garage in circumstances in which he is not committing any breach of the lease, if it is a lease, or in which he cannot have his tenancy determined. In such a case I think that the owner is entitled to be protected. I do not say that the words of the Amendment are very apt, but I am most anxious that we should not part from this point. It may be that the Government would prefer to deal with the matter on the new Clause. If that is their answer I shall be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment and discuss the matter later.

Mr. Robens: If it is desired to have a longer Debate on the new Clause, that will be all right with us, but with the single point that one does not want an owner to lose any rights by reason of an action by his tenant, there is a good deal of sympathy on this side of the Committee. Normally, however, as the hon. Gentleman knows so much better than I do, when a tenancy agreement is drawn up the owner gets his own protection in a legal manner. I take it that the hon. Member was dealing with, say, requisitioned property or property on a weekly basis where there was probably no tenancy agreement covering it and the tenant might put the landlord outside the provisions of the Bill. There is something in that point.
We could not accept these words—the hon. Gentleman will agree that they would be far too wide—but if he will leave the matter with us we should like to look at it, because we should not want the owner of property to be dispossessed of some right because of the action of a tenant and have no redress.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I find the Parliamentary Secretary's reply satisfactory, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in line 35, to leave out subsection (4), and to insert:
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for the words 'thirty-two pounds,' wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'fifty-two pounds;'
(b) in subsection (2) there shall be added at the end of paragraph (c) the following:'and
(d) in Scotland, any part (whether separately occupied or not) of a hereditament entered in the valuation roll as agricultural lands and heritages within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, being a part which is occupied wholly or mainly as a private dwelling and which would if separately valued have a rateable value not exceeding fifty-two pounds;'

(c) in the said subsection after the words 'paragraph (c)' there shall be added the words 'or paragraph (d);' and
(d) any question arising under this section as to what would be the rateable value of any such part of a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of this section if it were separately valued shall be determined by the assessor appointed to act for the purposes of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and the Acts amending that Act in the county or burgh in which the said part is situated, and his decision shall be final."

This Amendment replaces the original application of Clause 1 to Scotland, and perhaps I may explain the purpose of this enlarged Amendment. In the first instance, for the sum of £32 there is substituted a figure of £52. The reason for that is to be found in the different rating systems of the two countries. In England and Wales there are statutory deductions from the gross annual value under the Rating and Valuation Acts of 1925 and 1928 which are taken into account in getting the rateable value. These Acts do not apply to Scotland and, therefore, these deductions, to which reference has already been made today, do not apply to Scotland.
Secondly, in Scotland we have owner's rates as well as occupier's rates, and in these circumstances the tendency is to reflect in the rent sought from the tenant compensation for the owner's rates which have to be paid by the owner when he fulfils his statutory duty. For that reason rents tend to be higher in Scotland for comparable subjects. Taking these factors into account, we feel that the differential is justified, and the figure of £52

will embrace many local authority houses which have been built and are being built in mining areas and which may be susceptible to this type of damage. That explains the differential between these two countries.
There is one exception to the general rule of rating in Scotland, and that is in relation to agricultural subjects. So far as they are concerned, the dwelling-houses embraced in the agricultural subjects are not separately valued. They are contained in a comprehensive valuation of the agricultural subjects which, of course, get certain benefits under the various derating provisions We want to bring into the benefits of this Bill dwelling-houses on farms, and accordingly the second of the Amendments embraced in paragraph (b) is to the effect that any such houses will be separately valued and, if they have a rateable value not exceeding £52, they will be brought into the purview of the Act. I understand that is not necessary in England because in agricultural subjects the dwelling-houses are separately valued.
Should any dispute arise on this matter, under paragraph (d) provision is made for the local assessor appointed in terms of the Lands Valuation Acts to determine the question as an arbiter and his decision is made final. Obviously we want to get some finality to let the people know where they stand, and in Scotland we have sufficient confidence in these people appointed under the statutes to give a fair and reasonable decision.
Paragraph (c), which is the paragraph to which I referred at an earlier stage, is brought in in order, in the first instance, to bring in paragraph (b), which is part of the Amendment, into the top of page 2, where we have already referred on pages 1 and 2 to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). It brings in the new paragraph (d) and also gives effect to the grammatical Amendment to which I made reference, and which has created a certain amount of doubt as to its validity, in order to round the thing off grammatically. I trust that explanation will satisfy the Committee that this rather long Amendment is not too involved and not as complicated as it might seem in the first instance.

Mr. McKie: May I express my thanks to the Lord Advocate for his explanation of this Amendment? I should


also like to congratulate him on having been the sole representative of any of the legal officers on the bench throughout the Debate this afternoon. I take it, and I hope he will too, as a great compliment to the Scottish Bar that the legal affairs of both countries this afternoon have been completely safe in his hands.
At an earlier stage I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), suggesting that as a good Scot, he felt some embarrassment lest Scotland might obtain much more than England and Wales under the provisions of this Bill. I wish my hon. and learned Friend had been here now because he would have all his hopes in that direction dashed. The Lord Advocate has made it abundantly clear, and I hope that my hon. Friends above the Gangway representing English constituencies will agree, that Scotland will obtain little if anything more than is to be given South of the Border.
I agree that this Bill only seeks to do rough justice as has been said from the Treasury Bench and by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). Indeed, that is what we on this side of the Committee object to—that this Bill only seeks to do rough justice.

The Temporary Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman confine his remarks to the Amendment?

Mr. McKie: I was only saying that in passing, Mr. Bowles, and I would not think of trespassing upon your Ruling. I was glad to hear the Lord Advocate explaining the somewhat complicated paragraphs in the latter part of this Amendment, and I was glad he made it quite plain that the farm houses in Scotland would benefit by the provisions of this Bill if paragraph (b) is agreed to. I could not help thinking at the same time that the learned Lord Advocate and the Members of the Government responsible for promoting this Bill might have saved themselves a good deal of trouble earlier if paragraph (b) had been inserted immediately after subsection (2), because that is the part of this Clause to which this paragraph directly relates.
With regard to the last paragraph, the Lord Advocate said he hoped that Scottish Members would feel that any difference of opinion which might arise could

safely be left in the hands of the assessor. It is very far from my purpose to reflect on the capabilities, good intentions or good faith of these assessors because we know of the great deal of work they do and how fairly and evenly they discharge their high duties. I hope this will be no exception to the rule. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell me if there were consultations with the county and borough local authorities in Scotland before coming to this decision? Apart from that one small question, I express myself as agreeably surprised, if I may say so without offence, at the competent way in which the Lord Advocate explained this Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We are confronted once again with a manifestation of the constantly recurring mysteries of Scottish law from the Southerner's point of view. I think it must always be the case that the Southern Members of the Committee have to take matters of this kind largely on trust, and we do that with good grace on the assurances of the Lord Advocate. The mysteries of this matter are somewhat increased by a spelling error in the second line of paragraph (c), which makes that paragraph look even more formidable than it would otherwise appear. I take it that the Lord Advocate would be prepared to consider any further Amendments of this matter on the Report stage should there be any objections from Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain the mistake to which he refers.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Raikes: I confess that the more I look at the Clause the more glad I am that I am not a mining Member of Parliament. So long as we have the number of anomalies which must exist unless some alteration is made at a later stage concerning the date from which the Clause is to operate, and until some effort is made to embrace all dwelling houses, as may yet, indeed, be done, the Minister will be up against, perhaps, rather more than he anticipates.
The Minister indicated earlier this afternoon that it would be quite impos-


sible to go back years and years in order to include all forms of damage from subsidence in the 1930's and the 1920's. I agree, but what I feel—and it is a point which I think should be made—is that a great deal of damage must have appeared in mining areas as a result of subsidence during the war years. After all, between 1939 and 1945 not only did a large number of skilled men leave the pits for the war, but, apart from that, coal had to be got out for war purposes under any sort of conditions; every effort had to be made.
Retrospection having been admitted, I should like to have seen it carried back to say, 1941 instead of to the date of the Turner Report—1947. This would have given an opportunity for all who had suffered as a result of the special incidence of the war from subsidence damage to have had their claims dealt with. But when the date is fixed at 1947 I can see difficulties arising concerning those who suffered from subsidence damage during the war, including of course, persons who delayed putting repairs in hand on account of the difficulty of getting repairs done and so on during the war, and who no doubt in many cases had been dissuaded by the companies from undertaking repairs until all damage was apparent.
I hope that even now—because, after all, this is not a party point—a number of mining Members will express their views upon this issue in what, I think, should be only a comparatively short Debate upon the Clause. Where people live in exactly the same kind of house, but one man is given compensation while his next door neighbour does not get it just because of the period between, as I have suggested, 1941 and 1947, there is bound to be a feeling of injustice amongst quite a number of people, and naturally so. That is the last thing that any of us would wish. I know it is the last thing which the Minister wishes. I disagree with him over many things, but I appreciate his sincerity in desiring to see that this industry, of which he has now been brought in charge, shall be happy, prosperous and contented. But I am afraid that in the Clause as it now stands there are sufficient anomalies to give a feeling of injustice from village to village, and from area to area, which, with a little further retrospective effect to earlier in the war period, could very largely be averted.

Mr. Hubbard: Does the hon. Member not agree that if the Clause were made retrospective to 1941, people who had suffered damage in 1938, for instance, might feel equally disturbed that the date had not been settled at 1938?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: Of course, wherever the line is drawn there are bound to be anomalies, but I have particularly stressed the sort of subsidence and so on which obtained during the war years. I am bound to say that had the date been taken at 1941, a good many of these anomalies, right, left and centre, would have been averted. That year would have been a much fairer date than the year of the Turner Report.
I do not want, however, at this stage to talk at any length upon this subject. But I feel that as a result of the Bill, which touches really such a small part of a great problem, the Minister will find himself compelled—at least, not him personally, because he will have been succeeded by someone from this side in the next year or so—to tackle the question on far wider lines and avoid the degree and number of anomalies which will sour the Measure which, I know, has been brought forward with a desire to assist and to do good for the men in the mining areas.

Mr. Fernyhough: I have listened to a fair number of speeches from the opposite side of the Committee on the Amendments to the Clause, and I am amazed at their consistent inconsistency. Hon. Members opposite are now seeking to make the Clause more retrospective. When, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces a Measure which is retrospective, they howl and squeal about it like spoiled children; yet with this Bill they are asking the Minister to do the very thing which they object to the Chancellor doing in the Budget when he introduces legislation which, whatever may be their opinion will be retrospective.
I share the feeling of the hon. Member for the Garston Division of Liverpool (Mr. Raikes), that it would be very desirable if the Clause could have been made completely retrospective, but it would have been most unfair to place the whole of the burden upon the Coal Board. What I should have liked the Minister to do before introducing the Bill,


particularly with reference to the Clause which we are discussing, was to have met the late coal owners and to have discussed with them how much of the £164 million, which they are getting as compensation for their mines, they were prepared to devote to meeting this moral obligation which fell upon them because they had the profits from the coal which has caused the subsidence.
If hon. Members opposite would be prepared to say that at a later stage a Clause might be introduced which will meet their point, but that the financial obligation, in part at least, should fall upon the late coal owners, there would be a large measure of sympathy with that point of view on this side, but frankly we cannot support them in the point they are now making.
It is very obvious that, no matter upon what date the Act becomes operative, it must appear, as all legislation appears, unfair to those who are outside its scope. That always applies whenever progressive legislation is introduced. Those who have suffered, or to whom it would have been beneficial had it been introduced earlier, naturally feel that they have a grievance. Exactly the same might be said regarding mining diseases, when the date was fixed from which compensation for industrial diseases should apply. How many hearts that have been broken would not have been broken had we made that legislation more retrospective. In those days hon. Members opposite were not very sympathetic; therefore they cannot expect us to run the risk of not getting this Bill in order to meet their wishes on this point.

Colonel Lancaster: I wish to try to put something right which seems to have crept into the discussion of this Clause and for which the Minister must accept some part of the onus. There is a suggestion that responsibility for subsidence was that of what is called the coal owners. Of course, it was nothing of the sort; it was the responsibility of the owners of the mineral property who, in the overwhelming number of cases, were quite different persons from those who obtained permission for the coal to be worked.
A short while ago the Minister said there were two milestones in this matter. One was the Turner Committee's report

and the other the nationalisation of the coal mines. I suggest that the milestone of consequence was the day on which the nation became responsible for the mineral properties of this country, which was in 1937, and not 1947. From that moment onwards all this question of social justice, and so on, was a matter for the nation. For coal owners the Americans use a much more appropriate term, "coal operators"—those people, or companies, who work coal on lease from the owners of the mineral deposits. The leases were often so drawn that if support were required, a lesser royalty was paid by the colliery company and if no support was called for, the royalty was that much greater.
It is absolute nonsense to try to put responsibility where, in fact, it never belonged. If hon. Members like to draw attention to the shortcomings of royalty owners, by all means let them do so, but for heaven's sake let us get this right for the record. Responsibility from a social aspect and a national aspect dates from 1937, when the nation took over the mineral properties of the country and nationalisation of the coal mines was purely incidental. Who worked the coal, or how it was worked, had little or nothing to do with what we are discussing this evening. As the Minister himself fell into the same error as the hon. Member for I arrow (Mr. Fernyhough) I was anxious to make that point. It is the owners of the mineral properties who are responsible at this moment and for the last 13 years they have been the nation. In discussing this Clause we are not entitled to go beyond 1947, but if we were looking for social justice, we should write the whole Clause back to 1937.

Mr. Pryde: I welcome the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) for a short Debate. I know we have wasted a great deal of time——

Mr. Pickthorn: Wasted?

Mr. Pryde: Yes, wasted, absolutely wasted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, hon. Members opposite are wholly consistent in their inconsistency. Yesterday, last week, last month and for years now they have preached to us that we should economise and should not spend money. Today, we are giving the Government a


blank cheque to fling money about by the million. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) told us that the people for whom he spoke were hard done by and the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) gave us the reason. He said there had been a war. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) complained that he and his party did not have justice. I have the greatest sympathy with that and I wish they had got justice, because then we would have got this Bill through more quickly tonight.
I think it true to say that the question at issue between us is money. In all fairness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if we were to accept the contentions of hon. Members opposite, they ought to suggest to the Chancellor ways and means of accomplishing that end. Not long ago when an hon. Member told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should tax his ingenuity, the Chancellor replied that he had over-taxed his ingenuity in an effort to get revenue. He told us there was still 4d. per pound in wages left for the profit takers of this country. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if we are to accept their suggestions, that last 4d. will have to go the way of all the rest.
The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) tries to exonerate the coal owners as we know them in this country from all blame. I can assure him that in Scotland mining subsidence is possibly worse than anywhere else in Britain. That is because we have more seams than in other places. In my county we have 45, and coal has been operated there for seven centuries. Today, if one takes a train from Edinburgh across Fife one is not sure whether one will get across or not, and in Lanarkshire it is the same. We know that it was not only the limited liability companies who were responsible, because they came in at a later stage. We find, in the economic structure of the coal industry in Scotland, that before the nationalisation of mineral royalties the estate owners were always involved financially with the limited liability companies——

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is getting rather wide in going into that.

Mr. Pryde: I think I have said sufficient to explain that all that is at issue here is money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not the necessary financial resources at his disposal, unless he impinges further on the profit-taking element of the country. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that in this Bill we are making an attempt to do something which has never been recorded in the history of the Parliament of this country. I appeal to them to stop useless argument and to realise that if they appeal to the Government to get money the Government can only get it from the people who are benefiting to the extent of 4d. in the pound—their constituents. I appeal to them to give every assistance to us to get this Bill through so that we can help those in Scotland, who will suffer more than anyone else if the Bill is not passed. If, at the next election, they are returned to power we will co-operate in seeing that a more comprehensive measure is put on the Statute Book.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope I shall be short, and should not have spoken if we had not been accused of wasting time up to this point. Before I go on to what I hope will be a very short argument, I hope I may appeal for indulgence if I do not wait long after I have spoken because I have had neither lunch or tea. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I go away and that that will not be regarded as discourteous.
In reply to speeches from the other side of the Committee I want to say that it really will not do to say, "waste of time," because hardly an Amendment which has been moved this afternoon has not drawn from the Treasury Bench some kind of assurance of reconsideration at a later stage. I think hon. Members will bear me out that that has been the case. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite, who would claim to be more candidly and honestly interested in this particular part of the population than most of us, to accuse us of waste of time.
7.30 p.m.
Secondly, it will not do to say, as was said by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), that this is purely a question of money. I should think that there is really very little question of money. It is a question of houses. There is a much greater loss to the nation,


a much greater expenditure which will have to come out of the income of the nation, out of all its resources, if more houses are allowed to fall into ruin than if fewer houses are allowed to fall into ruin. The question of who is to pay the money to avoid that, or to avoid the worst part of that dilemma, is really not immensely important. If houses are not kept up because people are afraid that they would not get compensation if they suffered from subsidence, or if houses are not kept up because having suffered from subsidence they do not, by reason of the drafting of this Bill, get the money to be repaired with, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much worse hit than he is by the question of whether this Bill costs either him or the National Coal Board £100,000 more or £100,000 less. I really do not think that there is any doubt about that.
Hon. Members opposite really ought not to say that this is a mere question of money, and that what we are trying to do is to get so much money out of the National Coal Board that miners' wages will not be able to go up. I can, of course, understand their nostalgia for the days of private enterprise when miners' wages——

Miss Lee: Nostalgia for the days when miners' wages were so good!

Mr. Pickthorn: I can understand their nostalgia for the days when miners' wages represented 85 per cent. of the whole product of the coal.

Mr. Fernyhough: When they did not get 10s. a shift.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think this argument is relevant on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, it is surely not irrelevant to the question which has been frequently canvassed from the other side of the Committee about putting a burden upon the National Coal Board. It really is not true to say that we on this side want to put a burden on the National Coal Board——

Mr. David Griffiths: Oh!

Mr. Pickthorn: Not in the least—or that we want to keep down miners' wages.
There is one other thing I should like to ask, and I apologise for the fact that I might not be here when it is answered. Can the Minister tell us now about indirect damage a little more clearly than he could on Second Reading? I do not say that in order to try to score off him, because these things are not easy, and nobody would blame him if he was not altogether clear; perhaps he could now be surer than I think he and everyone else was on Second Reading. He told us this afternoon that it really makes no difference whether we say "damage appearing" or "damage occurring"—whether the occurrence of damage is an occurrence of subsidence damage, if it is not quite directly attributable to the removal of the subsoil.
That is a matter about which we were none of us quite certain on Second Reading or on the Financial Resolution, and I do not know whether it will be competent for the Committee to discuss that matter later on an Amendment, because I do not know what the Chair may hold to be the effect of the Financial Resolution. However, I think it cannot be out of Order now to ask the Minister what he now understands about the Clause as it now is, and what, if any, intentions he has about meeting us on that point if the Clause as it now is does not do the the things which on Second Reading we thought out to be done.
I have one last question for the Minister. I certainly acquit him of any intention to mislead, but I think that in an earlier part of our Debate today he did mislead, and I should like him to think again about his argument when he used the phrase "ex hypothesi." That sticks in my head because it is the only Latin phrase that has been used—unless it is Greek and not Latin. He began by saying that if either of our first two Amendments had been passed the effect would be an additional burden of £500,000 a year, that nobody could tell how many years back it would be, and that if it were as much as 10 years back then, ex hypothesi, it would total a whole £5 million, and that he obviously could not accept such a burden. I think that anybody who has been here all day will agree that that is a fair representation of the argument he then used, and I do ask him whether, on reflection, he thinks that that argument was fair.
I will not elaborate the point, because it seems to me that that argument clearly reposes on a misunderstanding, and that it really is not so. Perhaps it does not very much affect anything practical now, but if he, as I think, no doubt unintentionally, misled the Committee in the use of that argument I am sure he would wish for an opportunity now to correct it.

Colonel Clarke: I want for a moment to bring the Committee back to the question of the operational date. Nineteen hundred and forty-one has been suggested as a date when circumstances changed at the beginning of the war, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster), suggested 1938, when the Royalties were nationalised. I think there is a lot to be said for the latter date, but if antedating takes place—and I believe it should take place, and that the date in the Bill, 1st January, 1947, is not far enough back—then I think that 1941 would be the date to choose. I base my argument on the fact that in that year the nation, in addition to having control of all the coal as a mineral also took over operational control of the mines as well. From that time private ownership in this country really ended.
It is very often said that private ownership went on until 1947, but that is not correct. From 1941 the State was in operational control of the mines; that was really the beginning of the decay and inefficiency, due not only to national control but to dual control coupled with the effects of the war. I believe that 1941 should be the date. Certainly it should be ante-dated before 1947. We on this side are all agreed, and I believe that a great many hon. Members opposite think the same.
This Bill should be made as simple as possible. It is for the benefit really of the poorer sections of the community, and we want it in a form as easily understood as possible. In the past there has been much hardship through the owners of small properties not being able to understand their leases, and not realising that they had no right to support. Perhaps they did not bother very much, but if the title deeds had been in a simpler form they might have taken the trouble to understand them. Apart from the convenience of those who will have to operate

this Bill—the lawyers, and this House—everything should be done to make the Bill as simple as possible, and to put as few obstacles as possible in the way of those who must understand it if they are to get the fullest advantage from it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I might first deal with the two points made by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). I think I am right in saying that on the Financial Resolution an Amendment to insert the words "directly or indirectly caused" was ruled out of order, and I had better not add to that now. On the second point, about the additional £500,000 for earlier years, I of course admit that it is all speculation, but what I think is certain is that there was not less damage by subsidence during the years before 1947 than there has been since.

Mr. Pickthorn: At least it would be provable.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly. The damage would not be less, and would certainly be much harder to check when claims were made. If we were not to do injustice to some who had perfectly good claims—and it is one of the reasons I put the administrative difficulty forward in respect of our attitude—we might find ourselves admitting claims which would be unjustified. If we extended the date back to the war years I think that the sum per annum would not only be as much as the £500,000 which we caculate it now to be but, if that figure is right, it might be a good deal more in that period for the reasons I have stated.
The main discussion on the Motion now before us, initiated by the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes), has been on the retrospective effect of the Bill. I noted that he did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). He did not want to go far back into history but he wanted to go back to a date before 1947. He made two suggestions. He said firstly that if we take January, 1947, as the date, there may be some extremely hard cases of people who had been persuaded by colliery companies not to ask for their repairs to be done because the movement had not finished.

Mr. Raikes: During the war.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Because the movement was continuing was what I understood the hon. Member to say.

Mr. Raikes: That is not what I intended.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Then I beg the hon. Member's pardon but the point has been made about the movement continuing. I think those claims would now be accepted by the Board where there was an obligation previously, because the Board inherited the obligations of the companies. Any other cases are covered by the arguments which I have used.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Where damage had occurred before the crucial date, 1st January, 1947, which was continuing, and further damage took place after the crucial date, would the total damage be payable or would there be payment only in respect of what actually occurred after 1st January, 1947?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I understand the Bill, the amount payable would be in respect of the second part of the damage. I should like to look into the point before I offer a final and definite view on behalf of the Government. I concede that if a colliery company had, before 1947, asked someone not to have the repairs done because the movement was continuing then the Coal Board would include both parts of the damage. That is what I understand to be the position.
Other suggestions were made about going back further than 1947. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) said that I had helped to mislead the House by saying that this was the proper job of the colliery company. I think my words were that it would be illogical to put responsibility on the Coal Board for what had not been done by their predecessors under the then existing law.

Colonel Lancaster: What I was trying to make clear to the Minister was that if we were discussing the question either of social justice or the milestones in this matter, the important milestone must surely be that of 1937, and that nationalisation of the coal industry had little or nothing to do with the question of whether or not the nation should accept responsibility for subsidence.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It may well be that the nationalisation of coal royalties and the national ownership of the coal was an important milestone. I believe that the date of the relevant Act was 1938.
If at that time the then Conservative Government had said to those to whom that money was being given, "We think that as a matter of social justice it would be right that people whose houses have been damaged by subsidence should have had them repaired, although the law has imposed no such obligation," and if they had then taken part of that £72 million paid in compensation and used it to compensate the people whose houses had been damaged by subsidence, I feel sure that our party would have given them warm support. If the Government of that time had said what the Opposition are today saying in effect, "As we have nationalised the coal it is now the duty of the nation to look after this business," and if they had passed an Act of Parliament laying it down that the nation would pay compensation and do repairs, we should have supported it. We asked for such a Bill and tried to get one through the House, but the Government of those days refused to do that.
7.45 p.m.
We have to deal with the situation so created, with the accumulated miseries of a century of neglect. We cannot do everything. We have to tackle the present day problem, and many of the past miseries, alas, cannot be put right. When the hon. Member for Garston says "Let us go back at all events to the beginning of the war, 1939," I repeat that that is yet one year more and I am convinced that the cost would be not less than £500,000 a year. That would mean another £4 million. Who is to pay that? The Coal Board? No. It was either the hon. Member or the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who suggested that we should put the date back to the beginning of the war.

Mr. Raikes: I took the year 1941 really on the ground that war-time conditions dated from 1940 and the serious effect of subsidence from that time leading to damage would not appear before 1941, when national control of the mines began. That would only be covering war-time conditions from 1940, and 1941, therefore, seemed a convenient date.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The argument as between the two earlier dates suggested concerns about £1 million. If we are on financial aspect, to take 1941 as the date would mean an additional £3 million, and 1939 would mean an additional £4 million. That would have to be paid either by the Coal Board or by the Exchequer. I do not believe hon. Members will say that; my hon. Friends certainly do not agree with either of those propositions. I am afraid that it cannot be done. As one of my hon. Friends has said, there are anomalies in any limit which is laid down. There are, of course, some people in the mining areas who will wish that their cases had been covered, but broadly speaking this Bill has been welcomed in the mining areas, and I hope it will be welcomed by the Committee, and that the Committee will agree to the Motion "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We have appreciated the somewhat conciliatory attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to some of the Amendments that have been brought forward from this side of the Committee, an attitude in marked contrast to the observations made by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), about which I must say a word later. But because we appreciate the conciliatory attitude of the Minister to the attempts we have made on this side of the Committee to improve the Clause, we regret all the more that he should have introduced the polemical note he did in this Debate.
I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman taking the line that he can censure the party on this side of the Committee for acts of omission in this matter in the past. I should, however, like to point out to him that when he resists the suggestions we have made for putting the date back, say, to 1941, when operational control by the Government began, which seemed a not unreasonable date to select for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes), I think the right hon. Gentleman is weakening his position. I say that because while he can argue that Conservative Governments ought to have done something about the past he ought to remember that from 1940 onwards his party shared with our party the responsibility for this and many other matters. It is not, after all, as though, during the

war, all social legislation and all matters of improvement were permanently put on one side. Many matters were settled by agreement.
If we may be guilty with regard to the past; if we on this side of the Committee may be guilty of some act of omission during the war years, then that is very definitely shared by the party opposite. They ought not to ride upon their high horse and be so critical as they are inclined to be. I think we shall make more speedy progress with the Bill if we leave the more polemical matters to be dealt with at a grander stage of the Bill and concentrate more particularly on the Amendments which we are considering.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles is not being quite fair to hon. Members on this side of the Committee when he says that the discussion on this Clause has been a waste of time. With regard to at least three matters of some importance his own Front Bench have promised to review matters brought forward from this side of the Committee. Hon. Members may have their own views as to which is the most important matter, but from my point of view I regard the question of the subsequent rateable value taking the house outside the whole provisions of the Bill as a matter of some considerable importance, and that was agreed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
If, in regard to the discussions on this Clause we are to toss points back and forth about the Committee, I would point out that such improvements as have been made, due to the discussion upon the Amendments, have been made entirely as a result of the efforts of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. No constructive improvements whatsoever have come from the hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who represent mining constituencies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(NATURE OF OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "such," to "or," in line 44, and to insert:
repairs as will make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner of such dwelling-house.


We now come to the Clause of the Bill which deals with the nature of the obligations of the Coal Board. They are in alternative forms: they can either make a payment in money or they can carry out, in the words of the Bill:
… such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the damage thereto…
It is those words that this Amendment seeks to leave out and, instead, to insert another set of words with very similar effect.
Under the Coal Act of 1938, the Act which nationalised the mineral, the provision was that any subsidence resulting from the extraction of the coal not then in lease, in other words, subsidence resulting from coal which was nationalised as a result of that Act, could be dealt with either by compensation or, with the consent of the surface owner, by the mineral worker—that is, of course, a private person or company—carrying out the repairs. I think it important to look at the words by which that Act imposed an obligation on the coal worker which is now taken over by the National Coal Board. Under that Act the coal worker was obliged:
with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to claim compensation for that damage, to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him.
It will at once be seen that the two sets of words, that is to say the words in the Bill and the words in the Coal Act of 1938 are not identical. I do not think there is any very great difference in effect. Under the Coal Act the test was the satisfaction of the surface owner, and the Committee will realise that that right is left intact by this Bill. The person who suffers damage as the result of subsidence from working coal first put in lease by the result of the Coal Act of 1938 can maintain his right under that Act. He will maintain his right to have his house put in a proper and reasonable state of repair to his satisfaction. Under this Bill it will be seen that the test is to be different. I am not quite certain what is the actual intent of the words. They are neither objective nor subjective. They are:
Such reasonable repairs … as are required.

I suppose that what is "reasonable" is a matter which would be left to the courts to decide in default of agreement between the parties. I think that an unsatisfactory way to leave the matter. It would be better to say what is reasonable in the circumstances.
I submit that there is some importance in getting the two sets of words in parallel with one another. Here are alternative rights which can be exercised at the option of the owner of a house which is damaged, and it would be very much better if the two sets of words really meant the same thing. That would avoid giving the owner a rather difficult option in an increasing number of circumstances. I therefore suggest that instead of using the words put into the Bill the Government should look at the earlier Act and at those words. So far as I know, there has been no difficulty in operating them and they should be adopted and my Amendment accepted.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has shown very clearly what his Amendment is intended to do. As he says, the Bill as it stands has these words:
The Coal Board shall…carry out…such reasonable repairs…as are required in consequence of the damage.…
His Amendment seeks to change that to the words of the Act of 1938 which would require the Board:
to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction
of the owner. We considered the language of the early Act and we did not adopt it for the following reasons: in the first place, the Coal Board inherited the rights and obligations which went with the coal which was dealt with under the provisions of the 1938 Act. But, in point of fact, they have not yet worked any unsevered coal. In other words, the phrase has not yet been taken to the courts. It is not an accepted term of art which is well understood. It was novel in the context in 1938, and it has not been elucidated in any cases since. We think the phrase "make good" in this context is not really entirely clear or satisfactory and our words are the result of our mature consideration of the subject.
The term, "make good" is well understood in relation to minor decorating work, but it is not at all so appropriate


in relation, for example, to a much larger business, such as putting right a sloping floor. Moreover, the Amendment of the hon. Member would provide only for the reasonable satisfaction of the owner of the dwelling-house. There may be many cases in which a tenant would consider that he also had a good right to make his voice heard, and we think so, too. He may have a long lease; he may be under an obligation to do the repairs himself. Under this Amendment the aggrieved tenant could do nothing. If the owner said he had been satisfied by the Coal Board such a tenant would have no voice at all, even if the house were not properly repaired.
8.0 p.m.
Under the Bill the repairs have to be reasonable from the point of view of everyone—the owner, the tenant—whatever his rights—the Coal Board and all the other parties concerned, including the local authority. In proper cases we think it desirable that the tenant or the local authority should be able to speak up. I agree that, under the hon. Baronet's Amendment, if it was a local authority it would have the right. Any tenant who is under a long lease or a duty to repair ought also to have a voice in the matter. We think that our phrase is certainly as satisfactory as that of the phrase in the Act of 1938. We hope that the Committee will agree to leave it as it is.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was not clear on one point. The Minister said that in the Amendment the phrase "make good" would cover various matters such as minor decorations. Is it the intention that the words now in the Bill should cover decorations and other minor matters, or do they only refer to major repairs?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood. I think that the phrase "make good" has a well-known legal meaning in the context of minor decorations, but it has not in this context of subsidence damage. But, of course, in repairs to damaged floors due to subsidence there will often have to be decorating work done.

Mr. Mainwaring: The words under discussion leave us with the old position of the necessary reasonable repairs being largely,

if not entirely, at the discretion of the National Coal Board. They are the body who determine whether reasonable repairs have been done. It may be said that there is the possibility of dispute between the owner and the tenant upon whether property has been repaired to a reasonable degree of satisfaction. That point of dispute already exists. We need not wait for this Bill to come into operation for that. It already exists in the earlier obligations which the Coal Board inherited.
The Clause gives a margin of discretion to the Board. They can either undertake the work or have it undertaken for them. If they think fit, they can pay a reasonable sum to another person. It is the Board who determine that question. I can well imagine that there might be considerable delay by the Board before carrying out really necessary essential repairs so that the owner of the property does the work himself. Then the Board might say that under law, such and such an amount was reasonable. In the event of any disagreement on this point, will the owner of the property be able to make a complaint in court? Is there a right for the owner of the property to complain in court in an effort to secure redress if the Coal Board has not repaired the property?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In such a case an owner would have the right to go to court. The Coal Board are now spending £1 million a year in the repair of subsidence damage, and we judge that about half of that amount is spent on small dwelling-houses. That is an estimate. There are, of course, a great number of questions on which their views do not at first fully agree with those of the people whose houses or dwellings are to be repaired, but, in practice, they have very few disputes. Nearly everything is settled by agreement. I think that my hon. Friends behind me who come from mining areas will agree that the system works extremely well. In cases of difficulty they often go to arbitration. If they do not go to arbitration, they can go to court. On this point, they could certainly go to county court and have a decision.

Mr. McKay: I am rather surprised that anyone on this side of the Committee should attempt to argue in favour of the Amendment. Surely the word "reason-


able" of itself implies a sensible state of affairs. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent a person who is not satisfied from taking the question to court if he cannot get satisfaction by arbitration. I cannot agree with an Amendment which suggests that the question should be left to one person who, of necessity, is biased.
If a dispute arises, and the law is that the essence of the decision shall be on the word "reasonable", that applies to both sides of the question. There are all kinds of damaged property, and what is reasonable in one case may be unreasonable in another. The Clause as drafted is absolutely correct. It provides an opportunity for both parties if there is a dispute.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister said that should a dispute arise between the National Coal Board and some other body, under the terms of this Clause there are powers to go to arbitration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No. I misled the hon. and gallant Member if I said that. I did not mean to say it. I said that if they do not settle matters by agreement, the Coal Board usually call in an arbitrator, in common accord with the other party, and they settle the question by arbitration instead of going to court.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Suppose the Coal Board exercise their power under this Clause and say either, "This is a reasonable repair" or, if they think fit, "Such is a reasonable payment to somebody who has done the repairs", under what procedure is it possible for the person to apply either to an arbitrator or to a court against the sum so assessed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think, again, that the hon. and gallant Member has perhaps not quite understood the intention of the Clause. The words:
… if the Board think fit.
do not give them power to interpret the word "reasonable" to suit themselves. They give the Board a power to decide to make a payment instead of doing the repairs. In the normal course, they will put in their own surveyors and workers and do the repair, but if, for good reasons, they think it advantageous to make a payment to the man instead of doing the repairs they can do that. That is what is intended by the words:
… if the Board think fit.

On the question of the word "reasonable," if there is a dispute on that the matter goes to court.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I do not want to press the point, and I only put it because of the anxieties which are raised in my mind by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). In principle, I feel a certain anxiety about the power of the Coal Board, with its great resources, in relation to the people with whom it deals. Under this Clause it is given power. I accept the interpretation of the limitation of the words:
…if the Board think fit.
However, it is the Board that has power under the Clause to decide whether to carry out the work or whether to make a payment. I do not wish to press the point, but I think the Committee will appreciate that there might be a situation in which, at least, it would be theoretically desirable that the person who was to be compensated should also have a choice in the matter as to whether the Coal Board should carry out the works of repair or whether he should be given the financial resources to have the work carried out elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Coal Board is carrying out a great deal of this work all the time. It may be that the work goes on satisfactorily, but one can envisage a situation in which the Board are so overburdened with work that they have to delay a great deal before they can pay attention to the case of a person who, if he was compensated financially, might arrange for a jobbing builder to do the work for him. Under this Clause, we have to face the fact that the individual has no choice in the matter, and that it is only the Coal Board who can decide. That seems to me to put the individual rather within the power of the Coal Board, and, although I do not want to press the matter, because it might work out all right in practice, I wish to voice this anxiety, and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would bear that point in mind, not only in regard to the passage of this Bill, but also perhaps in regard to its administration.

Mr. T. Brown: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that what is provided in the Clause is what is actually taking place under the National Coal Board at the present time?


Many of the disputes which we have, such as they are, are settled on the spot by representatives of the Coal Board, the property owner or the trust estate. We find now that the Coal Board, to their credit, are more amiable and reasonable than the private owners used to be; we are getting on very well with them.
The point is that, when there has been damage fairly close to the pit, the Coal Board will send skilled men to execute the repairs, but, where the property is some distance from the pit and Coal Board is unable to transport the men and materials, they will agree, when an estimate has been prepared, to call in a jobbing repairer to do the work. From my experience of the last two years, I would say that we have found the Coal Board to be very amenable to reason. Where there is a dispute we soon settle the matter without ever mentioning going to arbitration or going to court. That is what is happening at present.

Sir H. Williams: I did not listen very carefully to the last speech, because it seemed to me that the bulk of it was devoted to something which happens later on the Order Paper, and which we are not now discussing. This Amendment shifts the onus; that is, the word "reasonable" in the Clause would, I think, be interpreted as what the court would regard as being reasonable in the eyes of a fair and equitable person. The words of the Amendment:
.… to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner …
do not mean that the owner can do as he likes, but what any impartial person would say would be reasonable. I think I have got it right. This question of what is reasonable has come before the courts dozens of times, and the judge has to direct his mind not to what we are saying tonight but to what the words mean in the legal sense.
I should have thought that the purpose of this Amendment was quite clearly to shift the onus; in other words, the judge has to look at it to see if the settlement is best from the point of view of the owner. If the Bill is allowed to remain as it stands the judge will have to look at it through the eyes of the National Coal Board. I am not a lawyer myself, though I have helped to make a few laws in my time and have acquired a little experience in that direction in the process.

I think it should be interpreted in the sense that the owner is a little man, who lives in a house with a rateable value of only £32, whereas the Coal Board is a gigantic octopus. The bias should therefore be cast in favour of the owner and not in favour of the octopus. The Minister said that the Coal Board would call in an arbitrator. I have never heard of one party to any dispute calling in an arbitrator.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Only in agreement with the other party, as I said several times.

Sir H. Williams: No, the right hon. Gentleman used the words "call in an arbitrator." If he suggested that the Coal Board proposed to the other side that there should be an arbitrator, that is one thing, but for one side, and the big side, to call in an arbitrator seems to me quite monstrous.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that, in reply to my hon. Friend, I made it perfectly plain that there was no right about going to arbitration. It only happens when both parties agree to it.

Sir H. Williams: I wrote down the words as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking—"N.C.B. call in arbitrator." Tomorrow, we will look at HANSARD——

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman listened to what followed.

8.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I listened very carefully, and I heard that the N.C.B. would call in an arbitrator. I do not like it put that way, and it should not have been put that way. By the terms of an Act of Parliament, arbitrators can be appointed when their appointment is agreed by both sides, and that I can well understand. If the arbitrators disagree, then there is procedure by which an umpire can be appointed.
The legal procedure by which the octopus calls in an arbitrator and then asks the little fellow whether he accepts, bearing in mind that the little fellow is already an employee of the octopus, does not strike me as being very kindly social justice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why mention that?"] I will go on mentioning it. I did not start the use of the words "social justice." I do not believe in doing it,


but in talking about it. The Parliamentary Secretary used the words "social justice," but it is the octopus and not the owner of the house who calls in the arbitrator. I hope the Minister will read the words again a little more carefully and try to appreciate their significance.

Mr. Grimond: I share the feeling that where there is any doubt the benefit should be given to the small man or the householder and not to the National Coal Board. It seems to me that in many cases the owner or tenant may want to take the opportunity of repairs being done to make larger repairs than were actually necessary to make good the damage done by subsidence. In that case, he might well prefer to take a payment rather than have the repairs carried out for him.
I am not quite sure whether the Amendment would give effect to that, but it seems to me that it is a point which the Minister might bear in mind. It may be that some choice ought to be left to the tenant, and I am thinking particularly of farmhouses, and of cases in which the farmer might want to have general repairs carried out, for which purpose he would prefer to take a sum of money rather than have the workmen of the Coal Board do the work themselves.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that what has been said on this point is valid, and that "reasonable" should be the qualification which the owner should be able to exercise rather than the National Coal Board.
I hate reminding the Minister of his grim and bitter past, but, if he will look back again at the Bill of 1939, for which he voted and which his Front Bench supported, he will find the words:
to the reasonable satisfaction of such owner-occupier.
That was the wording chosen by his Front Bench in those days. If that was right and proper in those days, it should be the small man and not the National Coal Board to whom the initiative should be given now.

Mr. Granville West: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where in this Clause it is shown that it must be "reasonable" to the Coal Board?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will look at line 41 of the Clause he will find the words:
the National Coal Board shall either carry out as soon as possible such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the damage thereto or, if the Board think fit, make a payment equal to the cost reasonably incurred by any other person in carrying out such repairs.

Mr. West: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the distinction. What the National Coal Board really have to do is to carry out repairs which are reasonable. They are repairs which are not reasonable only to the Coal Board. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who appropriately defined "reasonable" the other day by saying that what was reasonable was that which appeared to be reasonable to a reasonble man. That is the real test, and that is the test that the court would apply. It is not for the Coal Board to say what is reasonable. If there is a point at issue between the Coal Board and the owner, then it is the court which decides what a reasonable person would judge to be the proper repairs to be carried out in those circumstances.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of the course which this Debate has taken, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am firmly in favour of giving the Coal Board power to insist on the carrying out of repairs before making a payment. There will, of course, be plenty of opportunity for the Board to come to an agreement with the owner as to whether it is desirable, for particular reasons, to make a payment for repairs, and so on. I am quite sure that the right course is to give the Board the power to insist on the carrying out of the repairs in the first place, and only to make a payment where there are special reasons which make the payment desirable. In view of the attitude of the Minister, and his assurance that he has this matter under consideration, I am not anxious to press the point, and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from "the," to the end of line 7, and to insert:
reasonable cost of such repairs.
My remarks in submitting this Amendment to the Committee need only be


short, and I hope that we may get an equally short acceptance of it by the Government. It raises a very small point which is that under the Bill as at present drafted no one can claim compensation from the National Coal Board unless the damage exceeds £5. It may be that there would be certain administrative difficulties were every claim, no matter for how little, to be considered. On the other hand, I think that both sides of the Committee will agree that, at any rate to many of the small house occupiers, £5 is not something which can just be ignored and thrown overboard. In many of the mining villages it will mean a great deal to the owner, or to the tenant, as the case may be, if he has to pay £5 through damage caused by subsidence.
We feel—and again I must quote the Bill of 1939—that no limit at all should be set, and that where damage occurs it should be paid for. We also feel that whatever may be the additional effort which the Board will have to make in entertaining claims for small amounts of under £5, it will be well worth its while accepting the burden, because if a large number of small claims are not met, they will bear very hardly on the people concerned. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Robens: I would like to correct what I think is a misapprehension on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said, I believe, that if this Amendment were not accepted it would inevitably mean that unless damage was done to the extent of over £5 no claim would be allowed. I am sure he will forgive me if I read Clause 2 (2) to him, which says:
Where any reasonable repairs require in consequence of such subsidence damage as aforesaid have been carried out before the passing of this Act….
Those, I think, are the operative words, and this £5 only relates to anything which happened prior to the passing of the Act. Therefore, any damage which accrues after the passing of the Act is not affected at all by the limit of £5.
Then, very properly, it is said, "Why should you not pay people whose claims are less than £5 just because they have already had the damage repaired? Surely they have paid out money, and they ought to have it back? It would be particularly unfortunate if one man's bill for £5 2s. 6d, was paid, and another man's

bill for £4 17s. 6d. was not." I agree that where there is a dividing line that sort of thing will arise.
I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I read three lines from the Turner Committee's Report. It says:
We recognise, however,"—
this is dealing with retrospective payments; I know the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has read this and it is only for my own edification that I am reading it now—
that it will be impossible to do perfect justice in all cases and that any degree of retrospection must be conditional upon the possibility of devising suitable machinery for the assessment and sifting of claims.
In the experience of the National Coal Board, it would be administratively impracticable if every single claim from a few shillings up to £5 were admitted.
This is where the Turner recommendation is, in fact, being carried out. After all, this retrospective payment is something which is not normally done under Acts of Parliament, but it is something which we felt ought to be done, and which the Committee feels ought to be done, and, because it is something additional, it is necessary to have this limit of £5 on old claims. It has nothing to do with future claims, nor could a vast number of small, insignificant, and, indeed, trivial claims be dealt with by an organisation, as the cost of determining and proving such claims might easily exceed the real value of the claims themselves.

Sir H. Williams: I believe this relates to the past. Many of us have an insurance policy in connection with our motor cars whereby we take the risk of the first £5. Because of that, we get a reduced premium. That is not quite strictly analogous to this particular matter, but it comes to my mind because I was a member of the committee which examined the Transport Act under which we were all compulsorily insured. We thought it rather mean that social justice only begins after the first £5.

Mr. Messer: The hon. Gentleman would not understand it.

Sir H. Williams: I understand it quite well; I am only rubbing it in because I think that when hon. Members use a dishonest phrase it should be rubbed in. For the first £5 a man cannot have his money back on the grounds of admini-


strative inconvenience. Let us be quite honest about this; let us stop the use of these deceiving phrases. I am repeating it time and time again in order that hon. Members shall not talk about social justice and then deprive somebody of £4 19s. 10d.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends deprived them for years.

Sir H. Williams: I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this, but they must take their medicine because it is good for their souls. I think that the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is totally inadequate, and I hope he will reconsider it. I also hope that if my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws this Amendment tonight he will keep it in cold storage for the Report stage, by which time I hope that the Ministers in charge will be in a more reasonable frame of mind than they are tonight.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir H. Williams), is rather a pessimist because I am hoping that these Ministers will not be with us when these matters receive consideration. I was surprised at the extraordinary attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary. He quoted against my hon. and gallant Friend the Turner Committee's Report. He said that the Government accepted that Committee's authority, that they were splendid people, and that the Government were doing a most reasonable thing in adopting the view of that Committee which has produced one of the most sensible reports I have ever read.
8.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), was one of the most distinguished members of that Committee. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks so much of the Turner Committee, why does he not adopt their Report? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of the Report. They may have been muzzled by the Chief Whip, but they were in favour of the Report. Now the Minister comes here and says that he thinks the Turner Report is very wise, in order to justify himself on one single section of the Report. Why does he not adopt the Report?
It is, if I may say so, an abuse of the procedure of the House for a Minister directly connected with the Department which set up the Turner Committee to come here and say that he relies on the Report of the Committee when, in fact, he has thrown over the Report in the grossest possible way without any courtesy, any consideration or any sense. We have heard a statement here tonight which I beg hon. Members opposite to remember more particularly when they go to the hustings. He said it would be administratively inconvenient for the Coal Board to pay any claim below £5. Anything below £5 they must not pay. Was there ever such a doctrine? I know that £5 means little or nothing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not even mention it when they are seeing their dear constituents, but it does mean a great deal, and when the hon. Gentleman talks about the administrative convenience of the Coal Board—which I have often designated as a slate club, that being a much more effective designation for it—I say that they ought to scrap their administrative inconvenience and do justice to the small man.
It is an outrageous doctrine to say, "We won't pay." What would the late Keir Hardy have said of this? He would have supported me strongly tonight. What can we make of a Government that claims to be a friend of the small man when they say: "Oh, no, we are nominees of the Coal Board"—that collection of incompetents. They must not be asked apparently to pay a debt under £5. Now we know the meaning of "Labour gets it done"; they get the small man done in.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) is not here, because I am certain he would have something to say on this Amendment. I remember in his constituency going into a number of houses and being shown the type of damage which is occurring. I can remember very well a lady in one of the houses saying that at night she could hear cracks which were the sign of small items of damage occurring in various places in the house. The following morning some damage might be disclosed. It might cost 5s., 10s. or £1 to put right. It would be nothing very much. A week or six months would go by and then some


further damage would occur, costing perhaps £2 or £3 to repair. I do not think that kind of cost is covered by this subsection. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the subsection he will see that it contemplates that all damage occurs more or less in a single event, and he has not catered for the case where over a period of a year or so a number of small items of damage occur some of which may be below £5 and some above £5.

Mr. Robens: My own view is that cumulative amounts if totalling more than £5 are to be paid for. It is not a question of taking each bit of damage separately and settling that particular account. All the damage would be taken into consideration.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think the Clause is at all clear. It might well be that two items of damage have occurred at intervals due to the workings of two different seams.

Mr. Robens: Provided the damage is between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Act, it will be the total damage, not the different periods, that will come within the £5.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to get that assurance. I hope that when we reach the next stage the point will have been looked into to make quite certain that the Clause covers the case where there is a series of damage which has occurred at different times.

Mr. Robens: That is the intention.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to reinforce what has been said. It is rather difficult to construe the Clause as covering that point. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary has that intention, but I should be grateful if he would look at it again to make certain the Clause does mean that. It seems rather difficult to understand the Parliamentary Secretary's argument on the other side of the question. It is difficult to understand how the National Coal Board can deal with claims under £5 once the Bill becomes an Act, but cannot accept such claims for the period between January, 1947, and the passing of the Act.

Mr. Robens: I am sure that there is nothing between us on this point. If

repairs have been effected bills will have been paid. It is a simple matter to put them together and add them up, provided they cover the period between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Act, and then to say to the Coal Board: "Here is the extent to which I have incurred expenses for damage." After that, if a small amount of damage arises, notification is given to the National Coal Board to come and inspect it. That is why they can deal with all the small items afterwards but not before.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is a most difficult argument to understand. I do not think there is any question of someone using this Amendment to defraud the National Coal Board. If the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that, perhaps he will say so and we can then develop a different point.

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robens indicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Then we are talking about the same thing. As I understand it, all that is at stake is whether the National Coal Board can afford the time and staff to deal with small claims covering the period between January, 1947, and the time when this Bill becomes an Act. If they have the staff to deal with all such claims for the future, I cannot see why it is impossible for them to do so in cases before the Bill passes into law. We again get this illogical attitude of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary.
Take the case of two adjoining houses, in both of which there is damage to the extent of £2. In one case the subsidence happens the day before the Royal Assent, and in the other the damage occurs after. The second house can get payment in full, but the first house gets none at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is absolutely true. It is exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that £5 is the limit below which no claims will be entertained for any work that has been done until this Bill becomes an Act. That is the point. It seems to me a simple point, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are not going to agree with me.
We get this completely illogical differential, which is not necessitated by any rule, but is a purely arbitrary date chosen


for convenience. If the Coal Board can deal with all these claims from the date of the passing of the Act, it should not be beyond their capabilities to deal with a few cases that will arise between 1st January, 1947, and the time this Act comes into force. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept this Amendment, perhaps he will give us an undertaking to look at the matter again between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Robens: Before this figure of £5 was decided upon we looked at all these problems, and I am sorry if I appear to be illogical about it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is the Bill that is illogical.

Mr. Robens: All right, the Bill is illogical. But there is a big difference between a small claim for 10s. or 15s. in regard to something that has happened three years before and which has to be investigated as being due to subsidence, and a small claim which arises after the passing of the Act. In that case the damage is reported when it is occurring, and a workman is sent along from the colliery. He sees a cracked wall; there is the evidence of the subsidence. He goes back and gets the necessary mortar and does the repairs. There is a big difference between that and the machinery which would be required to sift small, trivial claims.
My hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent mining constituencies will agree that there are literally thousands of claims, which, if they were sifted to decide whether they were due to subsidence damage or not, would cost a great deal in administration alone. That is why we decided that it would not be fair to go beyond this limit of £5. It is not illogical to refuse to sift claims for less than £5 for repairs which happened between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Bill. It is for these reasons that we have taken the steps that we have, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Bracken: How can the Committee accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says? I am surprised that there are not more representatives from mining constituencies present at this moment. I

hope Mr. Horner is somewhere about tonight and will see the poor representation of miners. What does the Minister say? He says it is quite all right to do an injustice to the man whose claim is below £5. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said nothing of the sort."] Yes, he did. Hon. Gentlemen who are squawking had better read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "How can you deal with these claims of 15s.?" But all the great stores in the world will go to the greatest possible trouble to look into an objection from a customer if he is overcharged by a 1s. or 3s

Mr. Robens: Not when it is three years old.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, they will, but I am not speaking for the Co-operative Societies. The big stores will look into any complaint that customers make of overcharging. Is the Coal Board something set above God? It would seem to be, because what they say is, "We cannot be bothered with any claim which is below £5." I am delighted to notice what is happening. Many Members, who represent mining constituencies, are away when they should be here, and they have nothing to say about the small man who puts his savings into a house and finds that he is mulcted in £5. Apparently, it does not matter at all, because the wondrous Lord Hindley would not deign to look at such a small claim, nor would the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.
This is one of the gravest exhibitions I have seen here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite are joining with me in condemning the Parliamentary Secretary. It was one of the most extraordinary performances I have known from any Government. They say: "No one with a claim under £5 will be considered. We cannot be bothered to deal with them. Nor can our nominees in the National Coal Board." I hope that that news will spread throughout the country, and more particularly in the constituency of Ince.
8.45 p.m.
The Minister, who is a man of great amiability, approaches his present post with the qualification that he does not know anything whatsoever about mining. That, in other words, is his qualification


for being a Socialist Minister. He says that in the case of subsidence all that will happen is that a miner—or "a worker" as he calls him—is sent along to look at a cracked wall. The man fills up the crack with cement, and everything is then all right. That is the Minister's recipe for dealing with subsidence. In point of fact, the cracks may appear on the following day, and the worker would be there all the time unless he was dealing with a fundamental subsidence. This idea that we can have an amateur pottering around filling up cracks when the foundations are shifting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Minister had better hear me out. He approaches these problems as very small affairs. If and when a crack appears it will be filled up with cement at a cost of 30s. or £2. That is absolute nonsense.
The truth is that when subsidence appears on a big scale, cracks appear not only every day but every night. These are very serious matters for the unfortunate people who live in the houses. Yet the Minister comes along and says: "It is a matter of no consequence whatever. If a crack occurs we will spend 30s. or perhaps 50s. on a plasterer who will come along. Once he has done his work and filled up that crack the obligation on the National Coal Board ends." If another crack appears on the following day or the following week I suppose the Coal Board will say: "We have nothing to do with it. We accept no responsibility." All I can say is that the workers' friends tonight are the harshest men I have ever seen I must turn to Shylock as an exemplar.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out subsection (3).
The subsection which this Amendment seeks to remove relieves the National Coal Board of responsibility for rebuilding or paying for the rebuilding of a house which it is uneconomical to rebuild. So long, as the housing shortage continues in this country, the policy of the Government and of the housing authorities must be on many occasions to insist upon houses being repaired which can only be done uneconomically. The question which the Amendment raises is whether it is right, seeing that we are making the National Coal Board responsible for carrying out

repairs, to relieve the Board of the responsibility for those repairs to the extent to which they are uneconomical.
It seems to me that there are two classes of case in which the Coal Board might take advantage of the Clause if it remains in the Bill. The first would be where a house which, before the damage, was sound and, to a reasonable extent, up to modern standards was damaged so extensively that it was uneconomical to repair because the cost of the repair would be more than the house was worth. The other case is where the damage is slight but the difficulty is that the house, being old and out of date and not likely to remain for very long, was of small value before it was damaged In either case the Clause would give the Board the right to pay only a reduced measure of compensation or only to pay something towards the cost of the repairs.
Our object in moving the Amendment is not solely the protection of landlords. Tenants who live in the houses and also the houses themselves in a way have an interest separate to that of the landlord. The sort of difficulty that will arise if the Amendment is not carried will be that owner-occupiers will find that if their house is substantially damaged and they are not given the money with which to repair it they will have to go elsewhere and seek accommodation and they will not be given the full cost of finding accommodation elsewhere, and, perhaps, in the background, there is a mortgage on the house any way.
Owners will also find that they may in those very circumstances be faced with an additional difficulty in the shape of a local authority which comes along and says, "Whatever may be the economics of the thing, the house must be repaired." One way round the difficulty might have been to say that in those circumstances the owner could tell the local authority, "Very well. If you think this house should be repaired, take the thing and pay me its pre-damage value, and you repair it and you can have the National Coal Board's part payment towards it." That might have been one way, but, even so, it might seem a little unjust to put on to the housing authority that which we are in process of saying is the proper responsibility of the National Coal Board, that is, paying for damage due to mining, past or future.
I know that we may be told that there is a risk that spivs and profiteers will see an opportunity, if we omit the Clause, to take properties which have been damaged in order to re-build them and make money out of them, but I believe that on reflection the Committee will realise that such people are not likely to operate in areas where mining subsidence damage may occur again and again. In any event, if the houses are not owner-occupied, the Rent Restriction Acts will very much limit the activities of such people. In any case, I suppose that the difficulty will pass away when the housing shortage goes so that a vacant house has not an artificial cash value which is higher than the cost of building and when a tenant whose house is damaged can seek a house elsewhere. The Amendment seeks to deal with a very real difficulty, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Mainwaring: In this subsection the word "value" appears for the first time but occurs repeatedly in the subsequent Clauses of the Bill as well as in the Schedule, where the value of a house is defined as the price it might obtain in the open market with vacant possession. What can anyone get for a house in a mining district today? A house whose real worth in Rhondda would be anything from £300 to £500 would easily fetch £1,000 now, not because of its value but because of the stress of the population upon the existing supply.

Mr. Bracken: And the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Mainwaring: Let us assume that a house whose real value is £500 is damaged to an extent requiring £50 repairs. If the Coal Board were as soulless as the persons who used to be in possession of the coalfields, they could come along and say, "We have spent £50 on this house. If you sold it on the open market now you would get £1,000. Therefore, we do not need to pay you anything because, according to this subsection, we need only pay you the amount which would constitute the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage." So it is not a question of the cost of repairs at all, but the difference between the assumed depreciated value of the house

and its value in the open market. Some of these so-called definitions in this Bill are amazing, and this is one that needs to be looked at.

Mr. Robens: I am perfectly sure that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) who put down this Amendment, while looking at one aspect of it, did not realise the full implication of what he was doing. If this subsection were wiped out completely it would leave the Bill merely with the responsibility of carrying out reasonable repairs. Who would say what were reasonable repairs if a house were so badly damaged by subsidence that the conclusion reached under this subsection was that it was better to pay a depreciation charge than to spend more money in repairing it than the house was worth? For example, would any court say it was a reasonable repair to spend all that money? Again, what a difficulty we would put the courts in when dealing with other matters in respect to reasonableness that are mentioned in the Bill.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman himself said that we should do all we could to preserve houses—I do not disagree with him on that—but that it would be wrong to waste resources. Would it not be wrong to waste resources in labour and materials? It must be borne in mind that under this subsection a house has to be really badly damaged. It would mean virtually rebuilding the place, but would it not be wrong to do that rather than to apply that labour and materials to new building? In my constituency, as is the case with other mining Members, there is a good deal of subsidence damage. There are a good many houses in my constituency which are due for slum clearance in which miners still have to go on living. Would it be right that if subsidence occurred, bringing those houses within the ambit of the subsection—houses so badly damaged that the cost of the repairs would be more than the value of the houses themselves which are due to be slum cleared—we should spend all that money to make good slums which are to come down in any case?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: That is the very point I am making. I have known of cases where that has happened, where the local authority comes along and says to the


owner, "You must repair the house because it has got to be repaired; it is needed."

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Member would care to come with me one weekend I could take him, not merely to single houses, but to rows of colliery houses which are a disgrace for anybody to have to live in. Local authorities, thank goodness, are mainly Labour controlled, and never would say, "You have got to repair it." They would issue a demolition order and the house would come down.

Mr. Bracken: And put the man on the street.

Mr. Robens: No, they would find him alternative accommodation, which is much more than the party of the right hon. Gentleman would ever do.
We must get back to the concord and harmony which prevailed before I began speaking. I have tried to show, I hope not unfairly, that it would be a great mistake indeed to leave out the subsection, because the effect of doing so would not really be to the benefit of the people in their homes or of the owner occupiers. My last point is that the determination of the amount of depreciation is dealt with by Clause 4 and the Schedule. If I might refer briefly to that matter, I would remind the Committee that when the question of value is dealt with, the present-day market value of the house with vacant possession is taken. I think that, generally speaking, in dealing with this we have done the right thing, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman is the greatest optimist in the world if he thinks that his thoroughly inadequate explanation will make us cease from trying to do elementary justice to the tens of thousands of constituents of hon. Members opposite who are so ill-represented in the House of Commons.
The Minister told us that he admits that there is a housing shortage. I think that that discovery is almost as miraculous as when Stanley discovered Livingstone. Of course there is a housing shortage, and we know the reason why. It is largely because of the effusive, not to say fizzing, Welshman who was connected for a short time with the mining

industry and had the good sense to get out of it.
The Minister did not take the slightest notice of the suggestion by my hon. Friend that many of these houses can be repaired, and must be repaired. It is no use anybody in the Committee thinking that we are going to deal with this appalling social problem, the worst that afflicts our country, of literally hundreds of thousands of people without any place that they can call a home, by talking or writing about building programmes. We must do the best we can with the modernisation of existing houses, and it is for that reason that my hon. Friend put down the Amendment. There is a great deal which can be done.
The Minister talked in a blissful way and said that if he were to accept our Amendment it would lead—I am quoting his words—to the virtual rebuilding of a house, which he calls "a scandalous waste."

Mr. Robens: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member agrees?

Mr. Robens: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman had better remember, and he ought to remember, for one reason only, the history of a house which he knows something about, and so do I—No. 10 Downing Street. That house was falling down. Everybody said, "You cannot keep that old shack going. It is quite impossible. It is unhealthy, the foundations have fallen." Nevertheless, the House of Commons approved the expenditure of an immense amount of money in putting right No. 10 Downing Street. Let us spend some money in putting right the humble houses of miners. [Laughter.] Look at the gleeful grinning democrats. The Minister ought to be taking notice of this illustration because the fount of patronage in which he wallows is No. 10, Downing Street.
I do not want to go on with this particular comparison but I do say that we in this House have no right to say, as the Minister says, "Pull down these houses, condemn them." An immense amount of accommodation can be provided for people in this country if an intelligent effort is made to repair existing houses. There


are plenty of them and it is no use the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that we must allow the destruction of these houses, either by the fact that the Government will not provide the money to repair them, or because they may fall down on their own, and that we must be patient about these methods because in due course there will be a splendid housing scheme and that will deal with all the persons affected by this Amendment. We are not prepared to wait until the crack of doom, as we must if the present Minister of Health is responsible for housing.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I rise to ask whether there is not a principle involved in this which, by custom and usage, has always been accepted in other respects, but which the right hon. Gentleman did not find convenient to himself in his argument just now. All of us on both sides of the Committee were deeply affected by the breaking of his heart and, if it were not for the fact that it is so frequently broken, we would have been even more affected. Is it not a fact that motor cars are also in short supply and that we are accustomed to using rather old ones—at least some of us do and others use none at all?

Mr. Bracken: Not Ministers.

Dr Stross: I notice that hon. Members opposite still have some old Rolls Royce cars and I will confine myself to that illustration, or to 1921 Austin 20's. When such a car meets with an accident and a claim is made to the insurance company are not the insurance company allowed to say, "This is a write off, because it does not pay to put this back into the condition in which it was before the accident happened. It is not a good enough proposition and we will therefore pay a certain amount of compensation which we think is reasonable"? Right hon. Gentlemen have always accepted that from insurance companies in respect of cars. Why suddenly the remarkable sorrow, indignation and rather spurious hypocrisy over this matter?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: The Committee must have been deeply moved by the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-

on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in defence of slum property now owned by the National Coal Board——

Mr. Fernyhough: They did not build it, anyway.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: —and much of his speech will go on record, despite the interruption of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I was surprised by the nonchalant reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, who brushed aside, without even a sentence of reference, the important and constructive remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) who, after all, speaks with the greatest and deepest knowledge of this great problem.
It was really astonishing to see the quiescent attitude, particularly of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whom we are glad to welcome back after his recent illness. I remember him delivering a particularly powerful speech towards the closing days of the recent Parliament, the theme of which was how much he resented the attitude of, "Anything is good enough for the pits." Now he is sitting quite silent when the suggestion is that anything is good enough for the pitman when it comes to compensation.

Mr. T. Brown: I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not want to misquote me. What I said then was that in days gone by it was said "'owt 'ull do for t'pit," but that now we say that only the best will do for the pit and for the pitmen.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Yes, that is what the hon. Gentleman said. I well remember his speech. His hon. Friends are now saying that "'owt is good enough for t'pitmen" when it comes to accommodation. Should this Amendment be pressed to a Division I shall look forward to marching arm in arm with the hon. Gentleman on this very important issue.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Are not the Opposition going to divide?

Mr. Bracken: I am told that the Whips are in hospital.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am not informed myself as to the latest position of the casualty list of hon. Members opposite. I am told that the strain


of late hours is telling on them, and that when the bell tolls, hon Members arrive in considerable numbers from the Terrace bar—which is usually overcrowded, except when there is a vote taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] To withdraw that remark would be to add to the deficit of the Kitchen Committee, which I am loth to do.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a reflection upon hon. Members on this side of the Committee with regard to the use of the bar, when everybody knows that it is used equally, if not more, by the Opposition?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I listened very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and all hon. Members were included.

Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of Order. Do I understand from your Ruling, Sir Charles, that everybody was referred to in this respect? I would very respectfully put it to you that there are exceptions, and that they are mostly on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Bracken: Is it right that an hon. Gentleman should use this opportunity to indulge in some of his squalid temperance propaganda?

Mr. Hubbard: Is it in Order, Sir Charles, for an hon. and gallant Member to give us the advantage of his own experience as to who uses the Terrace bar and who does not?

The Deputy-Chairman: As we are debating a Bill concerning mining subsidence, perhaps we might now deal with it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No one would accuse the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who is so constantly in attendance here, of having any leisure whatever for the purpose of visiting the Terrace bar or any bar in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. My remark embraced both sides of the Committee and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) should feel so self-conscious as to rise to a point of Order.

Mr. Fernyhough: I think that the hon. and gallant Member will admit that his hon. Friends sitting around him have now suggested that perhaps it was an improper remark for him to make.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No. The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is entirely incorrect.
When these various interventions took place, some alcoholic and some temper ance, I was about to remark that the Parliamentary Secretary made, to my mind, the most astonishing observation when replying to the Amendment. He said that what his party would do in the case of a collier displaced because of inferior property, with one wave of the hand—I think the left hand——

Mr. Robens: The right hand.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I wish to be accurate. With one wave of his right hand he said "Oh, that is quite simple. We would find them alternative accommodation."

Mr. Robens: And do.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I would merely ask the hon. Gentleman to put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who I am very glad is with us: How and where?

Amendment negatived.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "Board," to insert:
by agreement with the owners and any person entitled to a payment under this subsection.
As they cover the same subject, perhaps it might save time if I discussed, at the same time, the next Amendment in my name, in page 3, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the absence of agreement with the owner or any person entitled to a payment under this subsection, the National Coal Board may apply to the county court, or in Scotland, the sheriff, for determination that in all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to carry out repairs or to make a payment under the preceding provisions of this section, and the county court, if satisfied to that effect, may determine accordingly, and the National Coal Board shall thereupon make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation.


and the two Amendments to Clause 3 standing in my name: In page 4, line 10. after "Board," insert:
by agreement with the owner and any person entitled to a payment under this subsection.
In page 4, line 15, at end, insert:
Provided that in the absence of agreement with the owner or any person entitled to a payment under this subsection, the National Coal Board may apply to the county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff, for determination that in all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to carry out repairs or to make a payment under the preceding provisions of this section and the county court, if satisfied to that effect, may determine accordingly, and the National Coal Board shall thereupon make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member wishes to discuss the four Amendments together?

Mr. Price: Yes.

The Deputy-Chairman: I agree, if that is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. Price: These Amendments will help to clear up the difficulty of deciding what are reasonable repairs and the methods by which they will be determined. As the Clause is drafted the Coal Board may make a payment equal to "the cost reasonably incurred," but that does not leave much latitude. It rather looks as if there is not much right left to the small property owner in determining the type of his compensation. I know a great many small property owners in my constituency whom I think will be involved in this matter.
It also looks, by the wording of the Clause, that the National Coal Board will have something approaching a free band in determining whether the depreciation shall be paid for or repairs shall be undertaken. While I did not agree with the Opposition in their last Amendment, I have no doubt that there will be many cases in which repairs should not be undertaken and in which it should be a question of depreciation, for there is inferior property which it is not worth while the Board undertaking to repair, and in respect of which arrangements should be reached for compensation on the basis of depreciation.
But there are also many border-line cases in which it is difficult to make a decision one way or the other. In such a case one cannot leave the Coal Board

free to be judge and jury in their own case. The answer seems to me to lie in these four Amendments. The first one suggests voluntary agreement between the owner and the Coal Board wherever that is possible, and it should be possible frequently for such an arrangement to be reached. Failing agreement I think the best thing is to have an independent opinion about the matter in these borderline cases. I suggest the county court judge. I would point out that in the Turner Report there occurs this passage, in Section 90, on page 25:
our recommendations for this…class of property "—
surface property—
are that the normal tribunal for enforcing claims for compensation shall be the local County Court with a jurisdiction unlimited as to amount.
The Coal Board should be made to show reasons for not meeting the full cost of repairs. In some cases they may be perfectly justified in doing so, but not in others. The Coal Board is a big public corporation and quite rightly we cannot ask a lot of questions about its activities. All the more reason, therefore, that it should be laid down that in difficulties of this kind there should be an independent opinion given. I am not tied to any particular wording but I think that the Clause needs strengthening by words of this kind.

Mr. Robens: It may well be that in border-line cases, such as my hon. Friend has indicated, there might be a sense of unfairness, but it is left entirely with the Coal Board to determine those matters. One can envisage a comparatively new house being heavily damaged by subsidence and the depreciation value would not replace that house as it was. Therefore, there might be a case where the owner might insist on repairs being carried out and with some justice. There is, therefore, something in the kind of border-line case with which the hon. Gentleman has dealt. It is perfectly true that under this Clause it is left to the Coal Board to decide, and if my hon. Friend is agreeable, having made his point, to leave the matter with us we will see if anything can be done.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) made a very reasonable speech and got no support from his colleagues. He has


made out a clear case, but I am not at all satisfied that the Coal Board are likely to do much justice to the smaller persons. After all, we know that they dwell in the stately homes of England. Our old colleague, Sir Ben Smith, lives in one of the largest houses in the country. It may be that he will go slumming round the mining villages, but I rather doubt it. The position of the Minister is peculiar, belonging, as he does, to a Government which is quite willing to spend over £150,000 in repairing a house in Carlton House Terrace for the Foreign Secretary.

The Chairman: Order. That has no relevance to the Clause.

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end to add:
(5) The amount (if any) by which any sum received under this section by a person who is the owner but not the occupier of the dwelling-house exceeds the cost already incurred by him of repairs to the dwelling-house required in consequence of the subsidence damage shall be applied by him in effecting such repairs.
The purpose of this Amendment is plain on the face of it, and I think the argument for it is almost equally self evident; that is to say, the agreed principle of this Bill on both sides of the Committee has been to reduce to the minimum the amount of house property which falls out of use, or out of decent use, as a result of subsidence. I think that is the principle on which we have all been agreed, to whichever party we belong, and upon that principle there is clearly a very strong prima facie case for providing that money found by the Exchequer and the Coal Board under the provisions of this Bill should be used for the mending and preservation of the houses concerned.
I do not know what case there may be against that, but it seems quite plain that on the face of the Bill, and of the principle we have agreed upon, there is that case in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. Robens: I appreciate the case made by the hon. Gentleman, but where the repairs are carried out by the Coal Board then, of course, there will be no

surplus money and, therefore, it could not be applied elsewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has the point in mind. The only time when money will pass over will be in respect of the depreciation payments. Would it not be rather unfair to insist that a man who got a depreciation payment should apply that to the effecting of repairs? He has been given a depreciation payment because it was not thought worth while to repair the property. Therefore, to give him a depreciation payment and to lay it down that he must apply it to repairs would be scarcely proper and right. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to do that, but that is precisely how the Amendment would operate.

Mr. Pickthorn: I see that difficulty, but the intention is to provide something which shall be used in the keeping up of the amount of accommodation units—I think that is the expression used by the Minister of Health. The intention of the Amendment, for whose form of wording I have no obligation at all, was to try to make sure that money provided by the National Coal Board, or the Exchequer, under this Clause should go to the maintenance or provision of houses. I am quite sure that everybody in the Committee would desire that result.
I do not for a moment suggest that it is certain that this Amendment would produce the result, or that there is no other better way of producing the result. The obligation which I suggest is on the Treasury Bench is to show whether that result is the result aimed at by the Bill and, if so, how it is to be got, because upon the hon. Gentleman's own argument it clearly is not to be got under the Bill as it stands. I am prepared to admit for the sake of argument that he has proved that neither would it be fairly and properly got under the Bill as I seek to amend it. What remains true is that that is what the whole Committee desires to happen. If it is not going to happen, either under the Bill as drawn or under my Amendment as suggested, then we ought to have some sort of indication from the Treasury Bench of the proposals they desire to make at a later stage.

Mr. Robens: I think that the hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that, in point of fact, all moneys will be spent upon the repairs or maintenance of property.


If the Coal Board do the job themselves, then there is no question about it. If they get another contractor to do it, they will merely pay the contractor's charges for the job. In other words, the contractors will be the agents of the Coal Board. I think that the hon. Gentleman could be satisfied that the Bill as drafted will enable all monies to be spent on the repair and maintenance of houses, with the exception of the depreciation charge which I have mentioned.

Sir H. Williams: When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke for the first time, I thought that he was right and that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) was wrong; but the Minister made the mistake of making a second speech. Those who take the trouble to read subsection (3) will see that it provides that if the cost of carrying out reasonable repairs exceeds, or will exceed, the amount of depreciation in value, then the National Coal Board, instead of carrying out repairs, may make a payment. The proposed subsection (5) deals with what will happen if that payment exceeds the amount already incurred. Then it provides that the benefit of that excess payment shall not go to the owner but shall in fact be for the benefit of the occupier. In other words, if an owner receives an amount which is in excess of the cost of what has already been done—if an excess payment has been made to the owner—he cannot put it in his pocket, but he will be required to use that excess money for the benefit of the occupier.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to read subsection (5) a little more carefully to see what is the effect of the argument which he has used, and I think his argument is false from his own point of view. The person whom we are anxious to protect in this case is the tenant, and the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is that the tenant is not entitled to any consideration. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will make a third speech to explain the point, because I would not have spoken at all if he had not made his second one.

Amendment negatived.

9.30 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before we part with this Clause, I wish to ask for an interpretation as to the way in which certain phrases in it will be administered. In subsection (1), we find the words:
The National Coal Board shall carry out as soon as possible….
I want to ask what is the Minister's view of the meaning of that phrase, and I think it is necessary that we should obtain some assurance on the matter. Later, the Clause uses the words "such reasonable repairs."
The reasons why I am asking for assurances on these points are, briefly, these: On a recent Sunday I was walking through part of my division when I came to a street where the houses were as clean as it was possible for women to keep them, yet right up the front walls there were fairly wide cracks. I looked through the front rooms and found that the inside condition of the houses was a credit to those who lived in them, while outside, there were these terible effects of mining subsidence.
Since all areas are involved in this matter to a greater or lesser extent, I would like to ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that the words "as soon as possible" will be applied in such a way that people will not have to live in these conditions as they have had to do in the past, but that, as soon as the effects of mining subsidence appear on ordinary houses, the Coal Board will see to it at once that repairs are carried out. I hope the Minister will be good enough to go as far as he can to make as generous an interpretation as is possible of the words about which I am concerned.

Mr. Peter Roberts: There are two points which I would like to put to the Minister, and the first one is on the question of the licences for these repairs. I should like to know, and I think hon. Members representing areas not affected by this problem would also like to know, whether, if these repairs have to be made by the Coal Board and, for instance, cost over £100, that will come out of the licensed allocation of the area or region, at present covered by the housing regional officer. Will this be building supplementary to the housing schemes, or will it take away from licences going into the building or repairing of houses? It is very important that


we should have the answer to that, because, in Sheffield, for instance, we are well behind in our housing programme, and if we are to be cut still further by repairs of this kind, I shall have to think even more carefully about this Bill than I have done so far.
My second question is one of principle which I would like the Minister to answer. There is some principle about this Clause which I do not follow, and I would be interested to hear the views of other hon. Members on the point. I do not see, and I have said so in earlier Debates on this subject, why the Coal Board should be asked to pay half of these repairs. The principle on which I start is this: if we take the period before 1947, when the industry was not run by the Coal Board, we were all agreed, I think, that these burdens should not have been placed upon the mining industry at that time.

The Chairman: I do not think that that question arises on this Clause. The matter of the amount to be found by the National Coal Board arises on another Clause.

Mr. Roberts: The point I am referring to is that the Board shall carry out certain repairs, or pay the cost of such repairs, and, as we know, they can recover half the cost from the Treasury. I do not understand why the Minister says that the Board should pay for all subsequent repairs, for the other 50 per cent. I should have thought that the Minister might say at a later stage in this Clause that the owner might pay a premium for some insurance scheme which would take some of the burden off the shoulders of the Board, and it is to that point that I am addressing my remarks.
Under subsection (2) a right and a duty are placed upon the Board to make repairs. Will the Minister say why this right and this duty were not placed upon the industry before 1947? I do not think that it should have been placed on it before 1947, and neither, apparently, did hon. Members opposite, as otherwise they would have moved the Amendment to that effect. If it was wrong then, how can it be right now? I suggest that those of us who are users of coal have the right to object to this extra burden being placed on the Board's financial structure. I repeat, in so far as hon. Members on both sides were not prepared to place the

burden on the industry when in private hands, why should they now want to put it on the industry when in public hands?
I think that when we come to Clause 6 we may find some reason why the Board have agreed to this, because in that Clause there is a very big loophole. If the Minister cannot give a satisfactory answer as to why, if it was wrong to do this before 1947, it is now right to do it, I hope the Committee will seriously consider further Amendments to this subsection on the Report stage.

Dr. Stross: I wish to support what has been asked for by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). He and I are colleagues, and, like many other hon. Members, are fully cognisant of the evil effects of subsidence. We would certainly like some further clarification regarding the definition of such phrases as "as soon as possible." Obviously, the definition cannot be given exactly, but some of us have experience of property in Stoke-on-Trent. Some of the houses there, owing to their being of a certain type, were able to claim against the colliery companies in years gone by. I did that in regard to my own house, and I did not have to wait a very appreciable time because I was the local doctor, but other people had to wait very much longer.
With regard to the term "reasonable repairs," I remember objecting because a lintel in my house was broken. Setting out on my rounds one morning I saw "reasonable repair" men putting a tiny skimming of cement on the lintel to cover up the break. It is true that when I objected it was cut out, and a completely new one put in, which I thought was a properly reasonable repair. We feel—although we expect very much better treatment in future—that some assurance should be given on this matter. The word "reasonable" does not really mean anything unless we can get a further explanation from the Minister as to its exact definition.
I know that this Clause as it stands, even without the further elucidation for which we are asking, and which I am confident we shall get, is welcomed by constituents of mine because it is a great advance on what we have had in the past. After all, some hon. Members are not aware in the areas where they live that


it is possible for a road to open and for human beings to fall in and never be seen again—that has happened in my constituency—and for a lake with everything swimming on it to disappear and never be seen again. We know these problems and have suffered from them in the past, and we would like the amplest possible definition that we can get.

Colonel Clarke: I rise only for a moment or two to ask a question. A few moments ago, the question of licences for these repairs was referred to. I recollect that during the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) made a very interesting speech, and asked whether the labour and materials needed to repair the houses would be counted in the quota allocated to Rhondda for housing purposes. I am not speaking for Rhondda in particular, but I think that we should have an answer to this question in general. I notice that the hon. Member did not get an answer the other day; at least, I cannot find it, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an answer to it tonight.

Sir H. Williams: I did not quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) when he said that before the Coal Board came into being, people used to fall down the shaft—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It sounded very much like that to me, but the hon. Gentleman was not very explicit.

Dr. Stross: It was I who was speaking of the "crack of doom."

Sir H. Williams: They fell down the crack of doom before the Coal Board came into being, and they did not get any compensation, and neither will they under this Bill. I do not see the purpose of the observation.
There is one point of draftsmanship to which I should like to draw attention. The second line of this Clause says:
…any subsidence damage occurred or occurs on or after….
I should have thought that the whole point would have been covered by the use of the word "occurs" without the previous words "occurred or," and I have been taught by eminent lawyers that words appearing in an Act of Parliament always have some use, which the courts

may have to elucidate. Will the Minister tell me why these words appear, because they seem to me to be redundant, and I think it always dangerous to have redundant words in an Act of Parliament, because they may cause great trouble later.
Other hon. Members have referred to the question of getting licences for carrying out these repairs. My experience is not so much with underground subsidence as with the vertical subsidence caused by Hitler. In my constituency, 15,000 houses were damaged, and there have been great delays in carrying out repairs owing to the lack of licences. I am, therefore, entitled to ask whether the words "as soon as possible" give a privilege to Stoke-on-Trent and other places. It is a fair question. After all, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North, South, East or Central, I am not quite certain which they are, did not experience the kind or horror which we experienced in my constituency, when at least 15,000 houses were damaged, I want to make certain that these words "as soon as possible" do not prejudice my constituents.
I live only three-quarters of a mile from here, and we are only now getting certain damage made good. We are entitled to shout, if I may say so, for our own constituency and our own interests. Vested interests are not merely the vested interests of the wicked capitalists but of the Members for Stoke-on-Trent and other places who come to plead the cause of their own constituencies. If there is a conflict of interest between my own constituency and Stoke, I shall fight for my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister would clear up that point of draftsmanship in the second line of the Clause.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: The point I wish to put very shortly is the point which has already been put twice from the Valley of the Trent. First of all, there is this question of "as soon as possible." These are words we have debated more than once before, which must, I am sure, although I cannot remember when and how, have been the subject of judicial interpretation. I should like to be told from the Treasury Bench whether, in their guess, in this connection it means "as


soon as materially possible," or "as soon as administratively possible," which, as a rule, means as soon as administratively convenient.
As a corollary, I should like to ask how it is conceived that this matter might be challenged. We heard a personal story from the medical Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) about what happened when he had rights as against a coal-getting company. In that case the coal-getting company began by delay; secondly, they papered over the cracks; thirdly, they did the job properly. In that case there was a sanction. He had in the terms of his lease or at common law a legal right.
Suppose that the hon. Member's lintel over the sitting room goes next time, and suppose that the repairs are not made "as soon as possible" in his understanding of those words, and are not made "reasonable" in his understanding of that word. What happens then? Has he the right to a suit in the courts, and exactly what sort of right of suit in the courts is it to be? My guess is that he will have no rights here, and that if he endeavoured to put down a Question he would be told that it is a matter of day-to-day administration. I think it important, therefore, to ask the Treasury Bench to make it plain to us what rights there would be in such a case.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I might first answer the point about drafting, as to why the word "occurred" appears in the second line of the Clause as well as "occurs." It is because this is retrospective. The word "occurred" refers to damage before the Bill becomes an Act, and the word "occurs" refers to damage after the Act is passed. I now come to "as soon as possible," which means "as soon as possible having regard to all the circumstances of the case." Later Clauses make it the right of the owner himself to carry out temporary repairs, if he thinks it necessary to deal with burst water pipes or to stop his roof leaking. If he gets that done the Coal Board will pay. He does not have to give notice, but just does it and the Coal Board pays.
Permanent repairs cannot be done with advantage to anyone until the movement or subsidence has ended, and it is not desirable that they should be done. On

the other hand before then it may well be desirable to do some temporary repairs or preventive works on the building to prevent the damage from becoming worse. All these things are allowed for and provided for by the Bill. If there is any unreasonable delay, the owner or occupier has the right to go to the county court, and the county court can act under Clause 12 (1, a).

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider, between now and the Report stage, whether he cannot give instructions to the local officers of the Coal Board that "as soon as possible" must be interpreted in as generous a way as possible?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that is done already. If my right hon. Friend receives any complaints I hope he will draw them to my attention, but I feel that we would have heard about it before this if anything like that had happened.
I come to the question of licences for repairs, and I was asked, do they come out of the area allocations, and so on? The bulk of these repairs will be under £100 in value, so that no licences will be required. I am also advised that local authorities themselves issue the licences. They are given the right to give the licences if only to keep an eye on this question of control and what is happening in their areas. I am perfectly sure that they will not refuse licences for this work.
I was also asked if the materials come out of the local authority allocations. I am advised that they do not, but the Coal Board go out and get their own materials. In fact, there is only control on timber. On bricks, cement and the other things required for such work there is no control, and the Coal Board will be able to get them.

Colonel Clarke: But supposing this work is put out to contract?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Then I presume the contractor will make his own arrangements, and will go and get the materials. If there are no controls he will be able to get the bricks, cement and suchlike things. However, normally the Coal Board will do it, and it is working satisfactorily now as I expect it will in the future. As I have already stated, the Board are working now under the existing


obligation to the tune of about £500,000 a year. I was also asked what "reasonable" means. "Reasonable" means "reasonable." As we have been told, the courts have dealt with innumerable cases, and they know what it means. If there is any dispute about it the court will decide the matter, and the people have always the right to go there. It should be remembered that the Coal Board have had no trouble about it up to date.
The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked why should the Coal Board pay part of the costs under this Bill? I would refer him to paragraph 85 of the Turner Report, in which they say:
We have throughout been convinced that in subsidence, as in so many other fields, prevention is better than cure.…We believe that a direct financial incentive to cause as little damage as possible will be a powerful influence towards preventing damage in the future and that it will be a mistake to leave the National Coal Board with a statutory obligation to get coal cheaply and no direct obligation to take account of the damage caused in doing so.
We accept the Committee's view, and we share the cost between the Treasury and the Coal Board.

Mr. Bracken: As far as we can understand from the long explanation of the Minister, the Government attitude is that they cannot be bothered to compensate anyone for past damage. They just brush it aside. That is a curious idea. I wish the Lord President of the Council would recommend it to the Board of Inland Revenue. It raises new principles in other State organisations, for if a debt or obligation is incurred two or three years ago it is not necessary to fulfil it. It is a very strange doctrine, indeed. I hope, as the time is getting on, that the Lord President will do something to correct the slowness of our progress. The Lord President muttered something. Does he wish to interrupt?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I was only suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that as he wishes the Bill to proceed with more speed, perhaps he will help us to get this Clause through by 10 o'Clock.

Mr. Bracken: That depends on the Lord President himself, because he has a colleague in the Minister who reminds

me of the lines of a famous hymn, which run:
Time, like an ever rolling stream,
Bears all its sons away.
The Lord President should cure his colleague of his volubility. The Lord President has raised this issue. When we want a business-like answer to a point what do we get? The right hon. Gentleman still thinks he is addressing the League of Nations, the United Nations or something else. We want to get a clear answer.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Clause, and not to these extraneous matters.

Mr. Bracken: I quite agree, Major Milner, but the Lord President made an appeal to me to get this Clause through by 10 o'clock. If I am out of Order then I am in very good company, and just as I accept your rebuke, so I think the Lord President of the Council, with his greater experience, deserves a more severe reprimand.

Major Milner: The Question is——

Mr. S. O. Davies: I will not detain the House for more than two minutes but—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bracken: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Major Milner, for the Lord President of the Council to shout at one of his supporters "Shut up"?

Mr. Davies: I think you will agree with me, Major Milner that it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Lord President and myself to settle these matters between us. I regretted to hear the Minister say that licences for repairs costing more than £100 might be necessary before such repairs could be carried out by the National Coal Board. I hope that the Coal Board will realise that looking after repairs which are the consequence of subsidence is work which is an extension of their work of running the collieries of this country, so that no licences should be necessary at all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SOFT FRUIT INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

9.58 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I make no apology for raising in the last half-hour of today's Business the question of the prospects facing the soft fruit industry in the coming season. In the time at my disposal I shall be able to deal with only two kinds of fruit, raspberries and strawberries. I will give the facts, I will warn the Government of what I believe to be the very serious situation affecting the industry, and I will offer suggestions by which the serious position which is arising can be remedied.
Before the war the acreage of strawberries was about 24,000 and of raspberries about 17,000. During the war, no planting was allowed because very considerable quantities of other crops were grown by orders from the agricultural executive committees and so the acreage went down. At the end of the war, the industry was encouraged to get back to its pre-war acreage. In 1947 the Minister of Agriculture said, in dealing with the Agriculture Act, that the Government fully recognised
that there is a substantial range of products, particularly horticultural crops, which are not covered by the provisions of assured markets and guaranteed prices, although they are, in fact, subject to the efficiency test under Part II. I want to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that the general objective in Clause 1 shall apply to the industry as a whole, and they fully recognise that other means of obtaining this object for these other products must be devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Captain Duncan: In the issue of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland's Notes for Farmers, dated 1st January, 1947, it was stated that the Ministry of Food and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland hoped that growers would not only maintain the present acreage of soft fruits but would do everything in their power to increase it at the earliest possible moment. It went on to say that it would

be a national asset if we could become self-supporting in soft fruits.
What has the industry done? As far as I can gather, the acreage this year for both fruits is up to the pre-war standard. The industry has thus done its bit, having gone on planting and increasing its acreage and having now got back to the pre-war acreage. However, the Government do not seem to have done anything to encourage the industry in the marketing of the crops. Price control came off some years ago. The Ministry of Food is now getting out of the business of buying and trading in pulp. Tariffs have been lowered and open general licences for pulp given and there is only limited control during certain periods of the year on the imports of fruit. The situation now is that the growers have done their stuff and there is a serious danger that they will not be able to market their crops at remunerative prices.
As regards tariffs in the case of fruit, the importation of raspberries is not controlled at all. That is not at the moment regarded as serious because raspberries do not normally carry very well. I would ask the Minister to watch the air importations from abroad which may have an effect on the price of imports which arrive. That is, however, not an important point.
Under the Ministry of Food Regulations an importation of 2,500 tons of strawberries is allowed between 1st June and 31st July. That was announced in the Ministry of Food Press notice dated 12th February this year. It has been said officially by Government spokesmen that there always has been a shortage of strawberries and that this will not affect the selling of the crop. Growers are not at all satisfied with that and they are not at all satisfied with the level of the tariff because the tariff rate has not been altered since before the war. It still is 1½d. a lb. or 10 per cent., whichever is the less, from 1st April to 15th June, and from 16th June to 30th June it is l½d. a lb., a specific duty only, and from 1st July to 31st July it is 3d. a lb. which is exactly the same as the pre-war rate. With the modern prices and the modern price level and costs of growers, that tariff rate is insufficient and I suggest that it should be raised to 4½d. a lb. so that the 2,500 tons to be imported


should not undercut the price structure for the strawberry market this year.
The arrangements made under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is commonly called G.A.T.T., included provision for raising the tariff on imported strawberries to 4½d. a lb., which has never been carried out by the Government. That arrangement still exists in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The most dangerous thing from the point of view of price structure this year is the importation of pulp, the price of which really masters the price structure for the entire industry. Last year 3,280 tons of raspberry pulp and 4,000 tons of strawberry pulp were imported. I understand that the raspberry pulp has been absorbed into the channels of trade and that the Ministry of Food has not any of that on its hands. I understand also that the Ministry of Food has still 3,000 tons of strawberry pulp on its hands and has only been able to get rid of 1,000 tons of it by sending this back to the Dutch from whom it was bought. I would like confirmation of those figures from the Minister when he is replying.
Pulp, unlike fruit, can be imported at any time of the year, and if there is not a proper tariff structure to support our price structure there is a grave danger of undercutting the market price structure for this industry. The tariffs for pulp have been reduced. In 1932 when the original Tariff Act was passed, and when I first came into this House, the tariff was 25 per cent. ad valorem. It is now 9s. a cwt. or 15 per cent. for both strawberries and raspberries, whichever is the lower. We maintain that this is inadequate for the present price of growing and to maintain the price structure which we desire for these fruits.
On top of that there is a difficult situation with regard to the existing stocks of pulp in the hands of jam manufacturers and canners. I have no idea what those stocks are, and I hope the Minister will give me the facts when he replies as to the amount of jam and pulp in the pipe line because I have not been able to collect them. I know there is an enormous quantity of poor quality jam in the hands of the jam trade. Not only the jam manufacturers but the wholesalers and retailers are all stocked up with this

20 per cent. inferior war-time standard jam. Until that is cleared off, this heavy weight of jam on the market, on top of all the other things, will have the effect of depressing prices still more so that there is a serious situation for these growers.
I could say a lot about the canners, about tin plate and so on, but all I shall say is that it has been brought to my notice by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that foreign canned raspberries, bilberries, cherries and strawberries from Holland, packed in 15-ounce and 30-ounce cans in 13 per cent. syrup, and in some cases 20 per cent. syrup, are being offered in competition with our canned fruits of a similar description which, by law, have to be packed in 40 per cent. syrup. That is an additional difficulty in view of the shortage of sugar and is also a further difficulty to the canners in taking the additional fruit.
I think that on the whole I have shown to the satisfaction of the House that a very serious prospect faces the industry. It employs more labour per acre than any other section of agriculture. One of the disturbing features is that if prices begin to drop below the economic level, there is no method of holding them until they become suicidal. It is my duty, therefore, to warn the Government of the serious outlook for the industry in the next three or four months and to urge them to do something to remedy the position which faces the industry.
I always try to be constructive, and I want to offer to the Government a few suggestions by which they could, at any rate, alleviate the situation, if not save it. The first is—and I have raised this matter by question and answer—to increase the fruit content of jam. The present fruit content is 20 per cent. Assuming that another 20 per cent. is sugar, the other 60 per cent. is goodness knows what—probably turnips. Before the war there were two standards for jam; the best contained 38 per cent. fruit. Let us try to get back to a higher standard of jam, which, at any rate, would give the housewife better value for her money.
Secondly, more attention should be paid to the quality of imported canned fruit, particularly its syrup content. My


third suggestion is to raise the tariffs to levels which are more commensurate with present price levels, to ensure profitability in the industry. Fourthly—this suggestion is entirely my own, and I hope that it will be considered—the Import Duties Advisory Committee should be reinstated. This is an impartial body, above party, which would look into the right level of tariffs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Would not that require legislation?

Captain Duncan: No, Sir Charles. It is already provided for in the Import Duties Act, 1932, and, as I understand it, would not require any legislation. That Committee would be a body to which growers, wholesalers and everyone could go, in order to ensure a fair deal for the growers and that the right level of tariffs could be reached. This step would also provide some satisfaction to the housewife, who is complaining of the present high cost of fruit and vegetables. It would be some satisfaction also to hon. Members opposite, who, according to this evening's Press, have been discussing the matter at the Labour Party meeting this morning.
My last suggestion is that in dealing with the question of tariffs there need be no difficulty about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. There are a number of Articles which deal with the horticultural industry. I will read only one, Article XIX:
If any product is being imported into the territory of a contracting party in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic consumers in that territory of like or directly competitive products, the contracting party shall be free in respect of such product…to suspend the obligation in whole or in part or to modify the concession.
We all know that lowered tariffs in respect of fruit were a concession towards the liberalisation of Europe, but here we have a situation in which those concessions are likely to injure the prosperity and profitability of an important industry which employs a great amount of labour. I hope therefore that the Government will not hesitate, if they cannot do it straight away, at any rate to raise it as the next meeting which takes place at Torquay. Above all, I want to appeal most earnestly to the Government to act now. It is no good waiting until Torquay in September,

when the damage will have been done. I appeal to the Government to take action, now to ensure the continued profitability; of this industry, which means so much, not only to my constituents, but to many constituents in England and Scotland as, a whole.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: In the few minutes at my disposal I am very glad to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) and to confirm, from the other end of Britain, the grave disquiet there is among soft fruit growers over the Government's import policy. If the statements which have been made by this Government and the previous Government mean anything at all, their desire is to see an expansion of soft fruit production in this country. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary want to see that happen, but it can only come about if the industry is given some sort of stability and some sort of certainty on what the future holds for it.
Planting of soft fruit is a very expensive task, more expensive than it has ever been and it is a long-term task with the grower getting little or no return for the first two or three years. On the long-term issue, we are committed to what is known as the liberalisation of trade and, so far, the effects of liberalisation on the soft fruit industry have been almost wholly unfavourable. Plums and tomatoes are examples. I think tomatoes are called fruit and not vegetables. Tomato growers had a sharp lesson, especially in the Channel Islands.
I have not time to go into the question of the periods of suspension on open and general licences, but, speaking generally, the criticism can be levelled against them that the periods of suspension are either too short, or are arranged in such a way as to allow the home market to be filled up with foreign produce, very often of attractive appearance but of inferior quality, in the days and weeks immediately preceding the arrival of the home product.
My hon. and gallant Friend has shown what can be done to meet the immediate situation, but the real long-term answer must lie in the conference at Torquay. The Government will then be given an


opportunity to make revisions in the present scheme, revisions which can be based on experience over the last 12 months and what I expect will be the unpleasant experience of the next few months. Those revisions should have one major aim, to ensure fair supplies to the consumer and a proper standard of reasonable prosperity for the British agricultural industry.

10.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I must say that at one stage, perhaps at one or two stages, in this short and interesting Debate, I thought perhaps the object of the exercise was hastily to put the other side to some nonsense we had, on the other extreme, from an hon. Member yesterday afternoon. I would say to the hon. Members who have raised this question that we must be a little careful not to exaggerate the story, or, from the producer's point of view, we shall spoil such cases as there may be.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) rather suggested that the effect of liberalisation of trade proposals so far had been wholly unfavourable to the growers of soft fruit and that the periods of suspension allowed the market to be filled up with inferior foreign produce. Any examination, of the results with tomatoes if you like, or any other of the crops mentioned tonight, over the past two years, and over the last year in particular, would not support that assertion at all.

Mr. Peter Roberts: What about asparagus?

Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Member sitting there muttering. The facts are against him.

Mr. Roberts: Mr. Roberts rose——

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but time is too short to give way.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member did refer to me particularly.

Mr. Brown: I would be quite prepared to give the evidence if we had more time, but there is nothing to show that imports of these fruits have broken the home market or have seriously clashed with our own supplies. About some of them there

was some argument, but for the most part the extra periods do not depart very much from the import arrangements made in 1946 after consultation with the industry. I seriously suggest that it is possible both to overstate and to understate in this respect. I have had some interesting documents from producers, merchants and preservers about the jam industry and the fruits concerned with it. They all make a point which has not been made here this evening, and that is the importance of our producers doing their own job. There is this comparison, for example, with the pulp that comes from Holland, the condition in which it is available, and the way in which it is much easier to boil so that it stays whole in the jam, with some of the stuff we have put on the market.
Instead of exaggerating whatever truth there may be in our case, we ought to go out of our way to say to our own producers that they themselves, first of all, by the quality of the stuff they put on the market and then, by their own processing and marketing arrangements, should take good care to see that there is no weapon in the hands of other sections of the trade for suggesting that our own home-grown produce is not as good as it ought to be. I think that everybody who is keen about the home-grown fruit industry will agree that there is considerable room for improvement there.
Let me now deal briefly with the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan). He quoted an assurance which my right hon. Friend has given, and which has been repeated many times, that it is our desire to see the same stability and the same security, and to have the same assurances, for the non-guaranteed product as for the guaranteed product. I repeat, that remains the aim of His Majesty's Government, and we accept that, in co-operation with the industry, other means of carrying it out must be found. Whatever there may be in the fear of the hon. and gallant Member that prices might change in the future, there is nothing in the history of our dealings with raspberries or these other crops in the last year or two to suggest that up to now we have not played our part.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that while the industry has played its part, hitherto the Government have not done


anything. I would suggest that since we freed the market prices have been extremely good indeed, and that there is no evidence that we on our side have fallen down compared with what the industry themselves have done. I will not go through the prices; I gather the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not dissent.
I agree that the acreages have gone up since 1947, when we made the announcement, and for soft fruits generally we are at just about the pre-war figure. I think we shall be above next year. For strawberries we are above the pre-war figure; for raspberries not quite; generally speaking we are above the pre-war figure. I think that shows that producers have so far felt that the market was theirs if they entered it, looked after it, and took care to serve it.

Captain Duncan: I am facing the future.

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be facing the future, but I have observed that the party opposite are never happy unless they can be miserable; and if they cannot be miserable about the present they have to get into the future.
What we must examine is whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is being afraid with or without good reason. He mentioned the question of fruit pulp. I recognise that that is obviously a very big issue. There is no question that up to the middle of 1949 all the home and imported supplies we could get were not sufficient for the market, but since the middle of 1949 there has clearly been a change. The public demand for jam has fallen off somewhat. Last year we had a very big strawberry crop and there were big strawberry crops elsewhere. There was a change. We came to the conclusion some little time ago—all these things take time to come into effect—that we ought, therefore, to cease the arrangement of the Ministry being the importer of foreign pulp. So, as from June this year, we are discontinuing these arrangements, and the Ministry will not thereafter be the importer of pulp. It will come under open general licence arrangements and the general commercial arguments will apply.
On the question of tariffs in regard to this and other fruits we have had a case made out by the producers' unions in this

country, as the hon. and gallant Member knows. We have said that we would consider the case if and when it came to us. It has now come and it is for us to consider the case made out and what, action could or should be taken about it. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member would expect me to say anything more about it at this stage as we have so recently received the case which is now being considered.
On the question of pulp, in the light of the changes we have made in the arrangements and the somewhat limited stocks—I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the exact figures for which he asks—the position is that we do not think the stocks now held are to any large extent a greater worry than the normal pre-war practice of a carry-over at the end of the year.
The hon. and gallant Member raised, in this connection, the question of the increase of the fruit standard of jam. The difficulty is that one is not quite sure what this year's crop will be; late frosts can make a considerable difference. Assuming that we do not get last minute frosts of a kind which considerably reduce the crop, I am happy to say that we propose to raise the fruit content of raspberry jam to 25 per cent., with effect from 20th July. We shall announce a decision as soon as we can once we are sure that frost trouble and worry is over. The fruit content of strawberry jam will be increased under similar conditions from 30 to 37½ per cent. from 25th June. The fruit content of blackcurrant jam will be increased from 20 to 22 per cent. from 20th July, with the same considerations applying, namely, that a decision must be reserved until we are quite sure that the crop will be as big as is needed for the purpose.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is that a policy announcement which the Parliamentary Secretary is now making?

Mr. Brown: Yes, on the understanding that we do not make a final decision until we are advised by our advisers that the risk of frost has passed. I hope that that risk will be over in the next day or two. In that event the new jam content will be as I have stated from the dates I have given.
With the past record that is behind us and the very good record of this Indus-


try in the last few years, the good prices it has been enjoying and the steps we have taken about pulp and jam, I see no reason whatever for either the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his constituents to face the future with anything but a tolerably cautious optimism. I see no reason for them to be unduly worried. We have obviously to watch the development of an industry like this; it can change in many ways. There is nothing inflexible about the arrangements we have made.
The tariff case will certainly be considered, and the effect on the industry of the other matters which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned will be borne in mind. My own view is that this industry can on the whole be regarded as being well able to stand the increased acreage which it has provided in response to the Government's request.

Mr. Crouch: Is it the British farmer or the manufacturer who makes this pulp which is inferior to the foreign product?

Mr. Brown: I think to some extent it is in many cases the lack of attention by the growers, both as to the quality they put on the market and the way it is put up. [HON. MEMERS: "Oh."] It is no use hon. Members denying that. There are some producers to whom what I have said applies. Those who are better must see that the weaklings in the trade are not encouraged to continue——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.